ßBack

A CORRESPONDENCE WITH MOTHER THERESA
Appendix

Rama P Coomaraswamy, M.D.

POSTSCRIPT nOVEMBER 2001

Reviewing this material in preparation for possible publication, several thoughts come to mind. First of all, it seems remarkably good for something that was put together some 30 years ago, and there is little in it that I would now change. But more important, it becomes ever more clear to me that this is not an argument won or lost, but rather that it demonstrates that the respondent and myself are speaking from two totally different points of view. Each has presented the case in defense of two very different understandings of Catholicism and that in fact it is a “dialogue” between two different belief systems. This is to say that what is involved is two very different religions with different beliefs, rituals and codes of behavior. There was no meeting of minds possible. Never have I been so convinced that traditional Catholicism (traditional for lack of a better word) and post-conciliar Catholicism are two entirely different religions.

I doubt seriously if Mother Theresa ever read the documents though of course the principle of respondeat superior does apply. Her request that we not publish it at the time was most probably from the respondent rather than herself, though she said it would destroy our friendship if I did. Now that she has passed away – may she rest in peace – I feel free to publish it, not in any way to attack her, but to make the arguments on both sides of the issue available to the public at large. At the same time, I doubt that many will read this material which demands considerable effort. Most Catholics today are simply not interested in understanding the issues and are perfectly happy to accept the new religion with its minimal demands and pleasant attitudes. Yet for those seeking to understand why Catholicism has lost some of its power and attraction, at least to those outside the Faith and seeking for the Truth, this document may be of some interest. They should however realize that the issues dealt with are, as it were the outer form of our religion that protect and contain the inner core which is the Heart of Christ. It is Christ who gave us the “form” and it is by means of adhering to the form (“If you love me., you will obey my commandments.”) that one can penetrate into its inner core or heart so that one can eventually, with the grace of God, say with St. Paul, “I live not I but Christ within me.

Appended to the document are various items which were attached to the original correspondence.

THE OTTAVIANI INTERVENTION

On Septe3mbefr 25, 1969, Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, prefect-emeritus of the Sacred Congregation for the Faith sent a letter to Pope Paul VI. Accompanying the letter was a theological Study of the New Order of the Mass (Novus Ordo Missae), written by a group of Roman Theologianss. Cardinal Ottaviani’s letter was a plea to His Holiness “not to deprive us of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to the fruitful integrity of the Missale Romanum of St. Pius V, so highly praised by Your Holiness and so deeply loved and venerated by the whole Catholic world.” It was apparently in response to the Ottavani Intervention that Pope Paul subsequently ordered a delay of two years in the deadline for mandatory implementation of the new Ordo. On the following pages we reprint, in English translation, the Ottaviani letter and the Studey of the Roman theologians.

The translation of the letter and the Study was made available to TRIUMPH by the Lumen Gentium Foundation (c 1969, “Lumen Gentium” Foundation, c/o Roper, 61 Roden Court, Hornsey Lane, London, No. 6, England) and is published here in cooperation with Una Voce in the United States

Letter from Cardinal Ottaviani to His Holiness Pope Paul VI

Rome, September 25, 1969

Most Holy Father,

Having carefully examined, and presented for the scrutiny of others, the Novus Ordo Missae prepared by the experts of the Consilium ad exequedam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturcia, and after lengthy prayer and reflection, we feel it to be our bounden duty, in the sight of God and towards your Holiness, to put before you the following considerations:

1) The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations inplied or taken for granted, which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.

‑

heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.

2. The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tra~ dition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem to us sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicion, already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed – by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever. Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith. Amongst the best of the clergy the practical result is an agonizing crisis of conscience of which innumerable instances come to our notice daily.

3. We are certain that these considerations, which can only reach Your Holiness by the living voice of both shepherds and flock, cannot but find an echo in Your paternal heart, always so profoundly solicitous for the spiritual needs of the children of the Church. It has always been the case that when a law meant for the good of subjects proves to be on the contrary harmful, those subjects have the right, nay the duty of asking with filial trust for the abrogation of that law.

Therefore we most earnestly beseech Your Holiness, at a time of such painful divisions and ever‑increasing perils for the purity of the Faith and the unity of the Church, lamented by You our common Father, not to deprive us of the possibility of Continuing to have recourse to the fruitful integrity; of that Missale Romanum of St. Pius V, so highly praised by Your Holiness and so deeply loved and venerated by the whole Catholic World.

/s/ A. Card. Ottaviani

SUMMARY

I; History of the change.

The new form of the Mass was substantially rejected by the Episcopal Synod, was never submitted to the collegial judgment of the Episcopal Conferences and was never asked for by the people. It has every possibility of satisfying the most modernist of Protestants

II Definition of the Mass.

By a series of equivocations the emphasis is obsessively placed on the “supper” and the “memorial” instead of on the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary.

III Presentation of the ends.

The three ends of the Mass are altered; no distinction is allowed to remain between Divine and human sacrifice; bread and wine are only “spiritually” (not substantially) changed.

IV Presentation of the essence.

The Real Presence of Christ is never alluded to and belief in it is implicitly repudiated.

V Presentation of the four elements of Sacrifice.

The position of both priest and people is falsified and the Celebrant appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister, while the true nature of the Church is intolerably misrepresented.

VI The destruction of Unity

The abandonment of Latin sweeps away for good and all unity of worship. This may have its effect on unity of belief and the New Order has no intention of standing for the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent to which the Catholic conscience is bound.

VII The alienation of the Orthodox

While pleasing various dissenting groups, the New Order will alienate the East.

VIII The Abandonment of defenses.

The New Order teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the purity of the Catholic religion and dismantles all defenses of the deposit of Faith.

THE REMAINDER OF THE “OTTAVIANI INTERVENTION” IS TAKEN FROM Father Anthony Cekada’s excellent translation. For a history of the document, the reader is referred to the complete translation and introduction as published by TAN in 1992.

IN OCTOBER 1967, the Synod of Bishops which met in Rome was asked to pass judgment on an experimental celebration of what was then called a "standard" or "normative" Mass.

This Mass, composed by the Committee for Implementing the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Consilium), aroused very serious misgivings among the bishops present. With 187 members voting, the results revealed considerable opposition (43 negative), many substantial reservations (62 affirmative with reservations) and four abstentions.

The international press spoke of the Synod's "rejection" of the proposed Mass, while the progressive wing of the religious press passed over the event in silence. A well known periodical, aimed at bishops and expressing their teaching, summed up the new rite in these terms:

They wanted to make a clean slate of the whole theology of the Mass. It ended up in substance quite close to the protestant theology which destroyed the sacrifice of the Mass.

Unfortunately, we now find that the same "standard Mass," identical in substance, has reappeared as the New Order of Mass (Novus Ordo Missae) recently promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution MissaleRomarum (3 April 1969). In the two years which have passed since the Synod, moreover, it appears that the national bishops' conferences (at least as such) have not been consulted on the matter.

The Apostolic Constitution states that the old Missal which St. Pius V promulgated on 19 July 1570—its greater part, in fact, goes back to St. Gregory the Great and even remoter antiquity[1]—was the standard for four centuries whenever priests of the Latin Rite celebrated the Holy Sacrifice. The Constitution adds that this Missal, taken to every corner of the earth, "has been an abundant source of spiritual nourishment to so many people in their devotion to God" Yet the same Constitution, which would definitively end the use of the old Missal, claims that the present reform is necessary because "a deep interest in fostering the liturgy has become widespread and strong among the Christian people"

It seems obvious that the last claim contains a serious equivocation. If the Christian people expressed anything at all, it was the desire (thanks to the great St. Pius X) to discover the true and immortal treasures of the liturgy. They never, absolutely never, asked that the liturgy be changed or mutilated to make it easier to understand. What the faithful did want was a better understanding of a unique and unchangeable liturgy—a liturgy they had no desire to see changed.

Catholics everywhere, priests and laymen alike, loved and venerated the Roman Missal of St. Pius V. It is impossible to understand how using this Missal, along with proper religious instruction, could prevent the faithful from participating in the liturgy more fully or understanding it more profoundly. It is likewise impossible to understand why the old Missal, when its many outstanding merits are recognized, should now be deemed unworthy to continue to nourish the liturgical piety of the faithful.

Since the "standard Mass" now reintroduced and reimposed as the New Order of Mass was already rejected in substance at the Synod, since it was never submitted to the collegial judgment of the national bishop's conferences, and since the faithful (least of all in mission lands) never asked for any reform of the Mass whatsoever, it is impossible to understand the reasons for the new legislation—legislation which overthrows a tradition unchanged in the Church since the 4th and 5th centuries. Since there are no reasons, therefore, for undertaking this reform, it appears devoid of any rational grounds to justify it and make it acceptable to the Catholic people.

The Second Vatican Council did indeed ask that the Order of Mass "be revised in a way that will bring out more clearly the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them."[2] We shall now see to what extent the recently promulgated Ordo responds to the Council's wishes—wishes now no more than a faint memory.

A point‑by‑point examination of the Novas Ordo reveals changes so great that they confirm the judgment already made on the "standard Mass"—for on many points it has much to gladden the heart of even the most modernist Protestant.

II

LET US BEGIN WITH the definition of the Mass. In Article 7 of the General Instruction which precedes the New Order of Mass, we discover the following definition:

The Lord's Supper or Mass is the sacred assembly or congregation of the people of God gathering together, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.[3] For this reason Christ's promise applies supremely to such a local gathering together of the Church: "Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst." (Mt. 18:20).[4]

The definition of the Mass is thus reduced to a "supper,' a term which the General Instruction constantly repeats.[5]

The Instruction further characterizes this "supper" as an assembly, presided over by a priest and held as a memorial of the Lord to recall what He did on Holy Thursday. None of this in the very least implies:

· The Real Presence.

· The reality of the Sacrifice.

· The sacramental function of the priest who consecrates.

· The intrinsic value of the Eucharistic Sacrifice independent of the presence of the "assembly."[6]

In a word, the Instruction's definition implies none of the dogmatic values which are essential to the Mass and which, taken together, provide its true definition. Here, deliberately omitting these dogmatic values by "going beyond them" amounts, at least in practice, to denying them.[7]

The second part of Article 7 makes this already serious equivocation even worse. It states that Christ's promise, ("Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst") applies to this assembly supremely.

Thus, the Instruction puts Christ's promise (which refers only to His spiritual presence through grace) on the same qualitative level (save for greater intensity) as the substantia and physical reality of the sacramental Eucharistic Presence.

The next Article of the Instruction divides the Mass into a "Liturgy of the Word" and a "Liturgy of the Eucharist,” and adds that the "table of God's Word" and the "table of Christ's Body" are prepared at Mass so that the faithful may receive "instruction and food."

As we will see later, this statement improperly joins the two parts of the Mass, as though they possessed equal symbolic value.

***

The Instruction uses man different names for the Mass, such as:

· Action of Christ and the People of God.

· Lord's Supper or Mass.

· Paschal Banquet.

· Common participation in the Table of the Lord.

· Eucharistic Prayer.

· Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharist.

All these expressions are acceptable when used relatively— but when used separately and absolutely, as they are here, they must be completely rejected.

It is obvious that the Novas Ordo obsessively emphasizes "supper" and "memorial,' instead of the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of the Cross.

Even the phrase in the Instruction describing the Mass as a "memorial of the Passion and Resurrection" is inexact. The Mass is the memorial of the unique Sacrifice, redemptive in itself; whereas, the Resurrection is the fruit which follows from that sacrifice.[8] We shall see later how such equivocations are repeated and reiterated both in the formula for the Consecration and throughout the Novas Ordo as a whole.

III

1[ WE NOW TURN TO the ends or purposes of the Mass—what it accomplishes in the supernatural order.

1 ultimate purpose. The ultimate purpose of the Mass is the sacrifice of praise rendered to the Most Holy Trinity. This end conforms to the primary purpose of the Incarnation, explicitly enunciated by Christ Himself: "Coming into the world he saith: sacrifice and oblation thou wouldst not, but a body thou hast fitted me"[9]

In the Novus Ordo, this purpose has disappeared:

· From the Offertory, where the prayer Receive, Holy Trinity, this Oblation has been removed.

· From the conclusion of Mass, where the prayer honoring the Trinity, May the Tribute of My Homage, Most Holy Trinity has been eliminated.

· From the Preface, since the Preface of the Most Holy Trinity, formerly used on all ordinary Sundays, will henceforth be used only on the Feast of the Most Holy Trinity.

2. Ordinary Purpose. The ordinary purpose of the Mass is propitiatory sacrifice—making satisfaction to God for sin.

This end, too, has been compromised. Instead of emphasizing remission for sins for the living and the dead, the new rite stresses the nourishment and sanctification of those present.[10]

At the Last Supper, Christ instituted the Blessed Sacrament and thus placed Himself in It as Victim, in order to unite us to Himself as Victim. But this act of sacrificial immolation occurs before the Blessed Sacrament is consumed and possesses beforehand full redemptive value in relation to the bloody Sacrifice on Calvary. The proof for this is that people who assist at Mass are not bound to receive Communion sacramentally.[11]

3. Immanent Purpose. The immanent purpose of the Mass is fundamentally that of sacrifice.

It is essential that the Sacrifice, whatever its nature, be pleasing to God and accepted by Him. Because of original sin, however, no sacrifice other than the Christ's Sacrifice can claim to be acceptable and pleasing to God in its own right.

The Novas Ordo alters the nature of the sacrificial offering by turning it into a type of exchange of gifts between God and man. Man brings the bread, and God turns it into "the bread of life"; man brings the wine, and God turns it into "spiritual drink":

Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation,

for through your goodness

we have this bread (or wine) to offer,

fruit of the earth (vine) and work of human hands.

It will become for us the bread of life (spiritual drinl<).[12]

The expressions "bread of life" and "spiritual drink,' of course, are utterly vague and could mean anything. Once again, we come up against the same basic equivocation: According to the new definition of the Mass, Christ is only spiritually present among His own; here, bread and wine are only spiritually—and not substantially—changed.[13]

In the Preparation of the Gifts, a similarly equivocal game was played. The old Offertory contained two magnificent prayers, the Deus qui humanae and the Offerimus tibi:

· The first prayer, recited at the preparation of the chalice, begins: O God, by whom the dignity of human nature was woondrously established and yet more wondrously restored. It recalled man's innocence before the Fall of Adam and his ransom by the blood of Christ, and it summed up the whole economy of the Sacrifice from Adam to the present day.

· The second prayer, which accompanies the offering of the chalice, embodies the idea of propitiation for sin: it implores God for His mercy as it asks that the offering may ascend with a sweet fragrance in the presence of Thy divine majesty. Like the first prayer, it admirably stresses the economy of the Sacrifice.

In the Novis Ordo, both these prayers have been eliminated.

In the Eucharistic Prayers, moreover, the repeated petitions to God that He accept the Sacrifice have also been suppressed; thus, there is no longer any clear distinction between divine and human sacrifice.

***

Having removed the keystone, the reformers had to put up scaffolding. Having suppressed the real purposes of the Mass, they had to substitute fictitious purposes of their own. This forced them to introduce actions stressing the union between priest and faithful, or among the faithful themselves and led to the ridiculous attempt to superimpose offerings for the poor and for the Church on the offering of the host to be immolated.

The fundamental uniqueness of the Victim to be sacrificed will thus be completely obliterated. Participation in the immolation of Christ the Victim will turn into a philanthropists' meeting or a charity banquet.

IV

WE NOW CONSIDER the essence of the Sacrifice. The New Order of Mass no longer explicitly expresses the mystery of the Cross. It is obscured, veiled, imperceptible to the faithful.[14]Here are some of the main reasons:

1. The Meaning of the Term "Eucharistic Prayer." The meaning the Novus Ordo assigns to the so‑called "Eucharistic Prayer" is as follows:

1. The entire congregation joins itself to Christ in acknowledging the great things God has done and in offering the sacrifice. [15]

Which sacrifice does this refer to? Who offers the sacrifice? No answer is given to these questions. The definition the Instruction provides for the "Eucharistic Prayer" reduces it to the following:

The center and summit of the entire celebration begins: the Eucharistic Prayer, a prayer of thanksgiving and sanctification.[16]

The effects of the prayer thus replace the causes.

And of the causes, moreover, not a single word is said. The explicit mention of the purpose of the sacrificial offering, made in the old rite with the prayer Receive, Most Holy Trinity, This Oblation, has been suppressed—and replaced with nothing. The change in the formula reveals the change in doctrine.

2. Obliteration of the Role of the Real Presence. The reason why the Sacrifice is no longer explicitly mentioned is simple: the central role of the Real Presence has been suppressed. It has been removed from the place it so resplendently occupied in the old liturgy.

In the General Instruction, the Real Presence is mentioned just once—and that in a footnote which is the only reference to the Council of Trent. Here again, the context is that of nourishment.[17] The real and permanent presence of Christ in the transubstantiated Species—Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity—is never alluded to. The very word transubstantiation is completely ignored.

The invocation of the Holy Ghost in the Offertory—the prayer Come, Thou Sanctifer—has likewise been suppressed, with its petition that He descend upon the offering to

accomplish the miracle of the Divine Presence again, just as he once descended into the Virgin's womb. This suppression is one more in a series of denials and degradations

of the Real Presence, both tacit and systematic.

Finally, it is impossible to ignore how ritual gestures and usages expressing faith in the Real Presence have been abolished or changed. The Novus Ordo eliminates:

· Genuflections. No more than three remain for the priest, and (with certain exceptions) one for the faithful at

ii the moment of the Consecration.

· Purification of the priest's fingers over the chalice.

· Preserving the priest's fingers from all profane contact after the Consecration.

· Purification of sacred vessels, which need not be done immediately nor made on the corporal.

· Protecting the contents of the chalice with the pall.

· Gilding for the interior of sacred vessels.

· Solemn consecration for movable altars.

· Consecrated stones and relics of the saints in the movable altar or on the "table" when Mass is celebrated outside a sacred place. (The latter leads straight to "eucharistic dinners" in private houses.)

· Three cloths on the altar—reduced to one.

· Thanksgiving for the Eucharist made kneeling, now replaced by the grotesque practice of the priest and people sitting to make their thanksgiving—a logical enough accompaniment to receiving Communion standing.

· All the ancient prescriptions observed in the case of a host which fell, which are now reduced to a single, nearly sarcastic direction: "It is to be picked up reverently.''[18]

All these suppressions only emphasize how outrageously faith in the dogma of the Real Presence is implicitly repudiated.

3. The Role of the Main Altar. The altar is nearly always called the table:[19] ". . . the altar or Lord's table, which is the center of the whole eucharistic liturgy.. "[20] The altar must now be detached from the back wall so that the priest can walk around it and celebrate Mass facing the people.[21] The Instruction states that the altar should

be at the center of the assembled faithful, so that their attention is spontaneously drawn to it. Comparing this

Article with another, however, seems to exclude outright the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament on the altar where Mass is celebrated.[22] This will signal an irreparable dichotomy between the presence of Christ the High Priest in the priest celebrating the Mass and Christ's sacramental Presence. Before, they were one and the same Presence.[23]

The Instruction recommends that the Blessed Sacrament now be kept in a place apart for private devotion—as though It were some sort of relic. Thus, on entering a church, one's attention will be drawn not to a tabernacle, but to a table stripped bare. Once again, private piety is set up against liturgical piety, and altar is set up against altar.

The Instruction urges that hosts distributed for Communion be ones consecrated at the same Mass. It also recommends consecrating a large wafer,[24] so that the priest can share a part of it with the faithful.

It is always the same disparaging attitude towards both the tabernacle and every form of Eucharistic piety outside of Mass. This constitutes a new and violent blow to faith that the Real Presence continues as long as the consecrated Species remain.[25]

4. The Formulas for the Consecration. The old formula for the Consecration was a sacramental formula, properly speaking, and not merely a narrative. This was shown above all by three things:

A. THE TEXT FMPLOYED. The Scripture text was not used word‑for‑word as the formula for the Consecration in the old Missal. St. Paul's expression, the Mystery of Faith, was inserted into the text as an immediate expression of the priest's faith in the mystery which the Church makes real through the hierarchical priesthood.

B. TYPOGRAPHY & PUNCTUATION. In the old Missal, a period and a new paragraph separated the words Take ye all of this and eat from the words of the sacramental form,

This is My Body. The period and new paragraph marked the passage from a merely narrative mode to a sacramental and affirmative mode which is proper to a true sacramental action.

The words of Consecration in the Roman Missal, more over, were printed in larger type in the center of the page. Often a different color ink was used. All these things clearly detached the words from a merely historical context, and combined to give the formula of

Consecration a proper and autonomous value.

C. THE ANAMNESIS. The Roman Missal added the words as often as ye shall do these things, ye shall do them in memory of Me after the formula of Consecration. This formula referred not merely to remembering Christ or a past event, but to Christ acting in the here and now. It was an invitation to recall not merely His Person or the Last Supper, but to do what He did in the way that He did it.

In the Novas Ordo, the words of St. Paul, Do this in memory of Me, will now replace the old formula and be daily proclaimed in the vernacular everywhere. This will inevitably cause hearers to concentrate on the remembrance of Christ as the end of the Eucharistic action, rather than as its beginning. The idea of commemoration will thus soon replace the idea of the Mass as a sacramental action.[26]

The General Instruction emphasizes the narrative mode further when it describes the Consecration as the Institution Narrative.[27] And when it adds that, “in fulfillment of the command received from Christ . . . the Church keeps his memorial.”[28]

All this, in short, changes the modus significandi of the words of Consecration—how they show forth the sacramental action taking place. The priest now pronounces the formulas for Consecration as part of an historical narrative, rather than as Christ's representative issuing the affirmative judgment This is My Body.[29] Furthermore, the people's Memorial Acclamation which immediately follows the Consecration—Yourholy death, We prociaim, O Lord. . .until you come —introduces the same ambiguity about the Real Presence under the guise of an allusion to the Last Judgment. Without so much as a pause, the people proclaim their expectation of Christ at the end of time, just at the moment when He is substantia//y present on the altar – as if Christ’s real coming will occur only at end of time, rather than there on the altar itself

The second optional Memorial Acclamation brings this out even more strongly:

When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus,

until you come in glory .

. .~,

The Juxtaposition here of entirely different realities—immolation and eating, the Real Presence and Christ's Second Coming—brings ambiguity to a new height.[30] I

WE NOW CONSIDER the question of who performs the Sacrifice. In the old rite, these were, in order: Christ, the priest, the Church and the faithful.

1. The Role of the Faithful in the New Rite. In the New Mass, the role attributed to the faithful is autonomous, absolute—and hence completely false. This is obvious not only from the new definition of the Mass (". . .the sacred assembly or congregation of the people gathering together. . "), but also from the General Instruction's observation that the priest's opening Greeting is meant to convey to the assembled community the "presence" of the Lord:

Then through his greeting the priest declares to the assembled community that the Lord is present. This greeting and response express the mystery of the gathered Church[31]

Is this the true presence of Christ? Yes, but only a spiritual presence. A mystery of the Church? Certainly—but only insofar as the assembly manifests and asks for Christ's presence.

This new notion is stressed over and over again by:

· Obsessive references to the communal character of the Mass.[32]

· The unheard‑of distinction between Mass with a Congregation and Mass without a Congregation.[33]

· The description of the Prayer of the Faithful as a part of the Mass where "the people, exercising their priestly office, intercede for all humanity"[34] The faithful's "priestly office" is presented equivocally, as if it were autonomous, by omitting to mention that it is subordinated to the priest, who, as consecrated mediator, presents the people's petitions to God during the Canon of the Mass.

The Novus Ordos Eucharistic Prayer III addresses the following prayers to the Lord:

From age to age you gather a people to yourself so that from east to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name.

The so that in the passage makes it appear that the people, rather than the priest, are the

indispensable element in the celebration. Since it is never made clear, even here, who offers the sacrifice, the people themselves appear as possessing autonornoas priestly powers.[35] From this step, it would not be surprising if, before long, the people were permitted to join with the priest in pronouncing the words of Consecration. Indeed, in some places this has already happened.

2. The Role of the Priest in the New Rite. The role of the priest is minimized, changed and falsified:

· In relation to the people, he is now a mere president or brother, rather than the consecrated minister who celebrates Mass "in the person of Christ."

· In relation to the Church, the priest is now merely one member among others, someone taken from the people. In its treatment of the invocation to the Holy Ghost in the Eucharistic Prayer (the epiclesis), the General Instruc tion attributes the petitions anonymously to the Church.[36] The priest's part has vanished.

· In the new Penitential Rite which begins the Mass, the confteor has now become collective; hence the priest is no longer judge, witness and intercessor before God. It is logical therefore that he no longer recites the prayer of absolution which followed it and has now been suppressed. The priest is now "integrated" with his brothers; even the altar boy who serves at a "Mass without a Congregation" calls the priest "brother."

· Formerly, the priest's Communion was ritually distinct from the people's Communion. The Novas Ordo suppresses this important distinction. This was the moment when Christ the Eternal High Priest and the priest who acts in the person of Christ came together in closest union and completed the Sacrifice.

· Not a word is said, moreover, about the priest's power as "sacrificer,” his consecratory action or how as intermediary he brings about the Eucharistic presence. He now appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister.

· By abolishing or rendering optional many of the priestly vestments—in some cases only an alb and stole are now required[37]—the new rite obliterates the priest's conformity to Christ even more. The priest is no longer clothed with all Christ's virtues. He is now a mere "graduate" with one or two tokens that barely separate him from the crowd[38] ‑ "a little more a man than the rest," to quote a modern Dominican's unintentionally humorous definition.[39] Here, as when they set up altar against altar, the reformers separated that which was united: the one Priesthood of Christ from the Word of God.

3. The Role of the Church in the New Rite. Finally, there is the Church's position in relation to Christ.

In only one instance—in its treatment of the form of the Mass without a Congregation—does the General Instruction admit that the Mass is "the action of Christ and the Church."[40]

In the case of Mass with a Congregation, however, the only object the Instruction hints at is "remembering Christ" and sanctifying those present. "The priest celebrant,” it says, ". . . joins the people to himself in offering the sacrifice through Christ in the Spirit to the Father''[41]—instead of saying that the people join themselves to Christ who offers Himself through the Holy Ghost to the Father. In this context, the following points should likewise be noted:

· The many grave omissions of the phrase through Christ Our Lord, a formula which guarantees that God will hear the Church's prayers in every age.[42]

· An all‑pervading "paschalism"—an obsessive emphasis on Easter and the Resurrection—almost as if there were no other aspects of the communication of grace, which, while quite different, are nevertheless equally important.

· The strange and dubious "eschatologism"—a stress upon Christ's Second Coming and the end

of time—whereby the permanent and eternal reality of the communication of grace is reduced

to something within the bonds of time. We hear of a people of God on the march, a pilgrim Church—a Church no longer Militant against the powers of darkness, but one which, having lost its link with eternity, marches to a future envisioned in purely temporal terms.

In Eucharistic Prayer IV the Church—as One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic is abased by

eliminating the Roman Canon's petition for all orthodox believers who keep _ the Catholic and

Apostolic faith. These are now merely all who seek you with a sincere heart.

The Memento of the Dead in the Canon, moreover, is offered not as before for those who are

gone before us with the sign of faith, but merely for those who have died in the peace of Christ.

To this group—with further detriment to the notion of the Church's unity and visibility—Eucharistic Prayer IV adds the great crowd of all the dead those faith is known to You alone.

None of the three new Eucharistic Prayers, moreover, alludes to a suffering state for those who have died; none allows the priest to make special Mementos for the dead. All this necessarily undermires faith in the propitatory and redemptive nature of the sacrifice.[43]

Everywhere desacralizing omissions debase the mystery of the Church. Above all, the Church's nature as a sacred hierarchy is disregarded. The second part of the new collective Corfiteor reduces the Angels and Saints to anonymity; in the first part, in the person of St. Michael the Archangel, they have disappeared as witnesses and judges[44]In the Preface for Eucharistic Prayer II—and this is unprecedented—the various angelic hierarchies have disappeared. Also suppressed, in the third prayer of the old Canon, is the memory of the holy Pontiffs and Martyrs on whom the Church in Rome was founded; without a doubt, these were the saints who handed down the apostolic tradition finally completed under Pope St. Gregory as the Roman Mass. The prayer after the Our Father, the Libera Nos, now suppresses the mention of the Blessed Virgin, the holy Apostles and all the Saints; their intercession is thus no longer sought, even in times of danger.

Everywhere except in the Roman Canon, the Novus Ordo eliminates not only the names of the Apostles Peter and Paul, founders of the Church in Rome, but also the names of the other Apostles, the foundation and mark of the one and universal Church. This intolerable omission, extending even to the three new Eucharistic Prayers, compromises the unity of the Church.

The New Order of Mass further attacks the dogma of the Communion of Saints by suppressing the blessing and the salutation The Lord Be with You when the priest says Mass without a server. It also eliminates the Ite Missa Est, even in Masses celebrated with a server.[1](45)

The double Confiteor at the beginning of the Mass showed how the priest, vested as Christ's minister and bowing profoundly, acknowledged himself unworthy of both his sublime mission and the "tremendous mystery" he was to enact. Then, in the prayer Take away our Sins, he acknowledged his unworthiness to enter the Holy of Holies, recommending himself with the prayer We Beseech Thee, O Lord to the merits and intercession of the martyrs whose relics were enclosed in the altar. Both prayers have been suppressed. What was said previously about elimination of the two‑fold Confteor and Communion rite is equally relevant here.

*****

The outward setting of the Sacrifice, a sign of its sacred character, has been profaned. See, for example, the new provisions for celebrating Mass outside a church: a simple table, containing neither a consecrated altar‑stone nor relics and covered with a single cloth, is allowed to suffice for an altar.[2] Here too, all we have said previously in regard to the Real Presence applies—disassociation of the "banquet" and the Sacrifice of the supper from the Real Presence itself.

The process of desacralization is made complete, thanks to the new and grotesque procedure for the Offertory Procession, the reference to ordinary (rather than unleavened) bread, and allowing servers (and even lay people, when receiving Communion under both Species) to handle sacred vessels.[3] Then there is the distracting atmosphere created in the church: the ceaseless comings and goings of priest, deacon, subdeacon, cantor, commentator—the priest himself becomes a commentator, constantly encouraged to "explain" what he is about to do—of lectors (men and women), of servers or laymen welcoming people at the door and escorting them to their places, while others carry and sort offerings. And in an era of frenzy for a “return to Scripture;” we now find, in contradiction of both the Old Testament and St. Paul, the presence of “a suitable woman” who for the first time in the Church's history is authorized to proclaim the Scripture readings and “perform other ministries outside the sanctuary.”[4] Finally, there is the mania for concelebration, which will ultimately destroy the priest's Eucharistic piety by overshadowing the central figure of Christ, sole Priest and Victim, and by dissolving Him into the collective presence of concelebrants.[5]

VI

WE H.AVE LIMITED OURSELVES above to a short study of the Novus Ordo where it deviates most seriously from the theology of the Catholic Mass. Our observations touch upon deviations which are typical. To prepare a complete study of all the pitfalls, dangers and psychologically and spiritually destructive elements the new rite contains, whether in texts, rubrics or instructions, would be a vast undertaking.

We have taken no more than a passing glance at the three new Eucharistic Prayers, since they have already come in for repeated and authoritative criticism. The second gave

Immediate scandal to the faithful due to its brevity.[6] Of Eucharistic Prayer II it has well been said that a priest who no longer believed in either Transubstantiation or the saerificial charaeter of the Mass could recite it with perfect tranquility of conscience, and that a Protestant minister, moreover, could use it in his own celebrations just as well. The new Missal was introduced in Rome as an “abundant resource for pastoral work,” as “a text more pastoral than juridical,” which national bishops' conferences could adapt, according to circumstances, to the “spirit” of different peoples. Section One of the new Congregation for Divine Wor ship, moreover, will now be responsible “for the publication and constant revision of liturgical books”

This idea was echoed recently in the official newsletter of the Liturgical Institutes of Germany, Switzerland and Austria:

The Latin texts must now be translated into the languages of different nations. The “Roman style” must be adapted to the individuality of each local Church.

that which was conceived in a timeless state must now be transposed into the changing context of concrete situations, and into the constant flux of the universal Church and its myriad congregations.”

The Apostolic Constitution itself, in promulgating the Novas Ordo Missae, deals a death‑blow to the Church's universal language when—contrary to the express wish of the Second Vatican Council—it unequivocally states that “in a great diversity of languages, one [?] and the same prayer will ascend, more fragrant than incense.”

The demise of Latin may therefore be taken for granted. Gregorian chant—which Vatican II recognized as a distinctive characteristic of the Roman liturgy, decreeing that it “be given pride of place in liturgical services”[7]—will logically follow, given, among other things, the freedom of choice permitted in choosing texts for the Introit and the Gradual.

From the outset, therefore, the new rite was pluralistic and experimental, bound to time and place. Since unity of worship has been shattered once and for all, what basis will exist for the unity of the faith which accompanied it and which, we were told, was always to be defended without compromise?

It is obvious that the New Order of Mass has no intention of presenting the Faith taught by the Council of Trent. But it is to this Faith that the Catholic conscience is bound forever. Thus, with the promulgation of the New Order of Mass, the true Catholic is faced with a tragic need to choose.

VII

THE APOSTOLIC CONSTIUTION explicitly mentions the riches of piety and doctrine the Novus Ordo supposedly borrows from the Eastern Churches. But the result is so removed from, and indeed opposed to the spirit of the Eastern liturgies that it can only leave the faithful in those rites revolted and horrified.

What do these ecumenical borrowings amount to? Basically, to introducing multiple texts for the Eucharistic Prayer (the anaphora)—none of which approaches their Eastern counterparts' complexity or beauty—and to permitting Communion Under Both Species and the use of deacons.

Against this, the New Order of Mass appears to have been deliberately shorn of every element where the Roman Liturgy came closest to the Eastern rites.[8] At the same time, by abandoning its unmistakable and immemorial Roman character, the Novus Ordo cast off what was spiritually precious of its own. In place of this are elements which bring the new rite closer to certain Protestant liturgies, not even those closest to Catholicism. At the same time, these new elements degrade the Roman liturgy and further alienate it from the East, as did the reforms which preceded the Novas Ordo. In compensation, the new liturgy will delight all those groups hovering on the verge of apostasy who, during a spiritual crisis without precedent, now wreak havoc in the Church by poisoning Her organism and by undermining Her unity in doctrine, worship, morals and discipline.

VIII

ST. PIUS V HAD THE ROMAN MISSAL drawn up (as the present Apostolic Constitution now recalls) as an instrument of unity among Catholics. In conformity with the injunctions of the Council of Trent, the Missal was to exclude all dangers, either to liturgical worship or to the faith itself, then threatened by the Protestant Revolt. The grave situation fully justified—and even rendered prophetic—the saintly Pontiff's solemn warning given in 1570 at the end of the Bull promulgating his Missal:

Should anyone presume to tamper with this, let him know

that he shall incur the wrath of God Almighty and His holy

Apostles Peter and Paul.s[9]

When the No~us Ordo was presented at the Vatican Press Office, it was impudently asserted that conditions which prompted the decrees of the Council of Trent no longer exist. Not only do these decrees still apply today, but conditions are now infinitely worse. It was precisely to repel those snares which in every age threaten the pure Deposit of the Faith,[10] that the Church, under divine inspiration, set up dogmatic definitions and doctrinal pronouncements as her defenses. These in turn immediately influenced her worship, which became the most complete monument to her faith. Trying to return this worship to the practices of Christian antiquity and recreating artificially the original spontaneity of ancient times is to engage in that “unhealthy archaeologism” Pius XII so roundly condemned [11]It is, moreover, to dismantle all the theological ramparts erected for the protection of the rite and to take away all the beauty which enriched it for centuries [12] And all this at one of the most critical moments—if not the most critical moment—in the Church's history!

Today, division and schism are officially acknowledged to exist not only outside the Church, but within her as well [13] The Church's unity is not only threatened, but has already been tragically compromised[14] Errors against the Faith are not merely insinuated, but are—as has been likewise acknowledged—now forcibly imposed through liturgical abuses and aberrations.

To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries stood as a sign and pledge of unity in worship,[15] and‑to replace it with another liturgy which, due to the countless liberties it implicitly authorizes, cannot but be a sign of division—a liturgy which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic Faith—is, we feel bound in conscience to proclaim, an incalculable error.

CORPUS DOMINI

5 June 1969

Those interested in the footnote references that the footnote numbers provide, are referred to Father Cekada’s translation published by TAN under the title of The Ottaviani Intervention, a Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass.

THE VENTRILOQUISTS

(Being the study of Patric Omlor on the mistranslation of multis by all.)

(Published in INTERDUM, Feb. 24., 1970)

Who are the ones responsible for authoring the “English language” counterfeits which are being passed off as “liturgy”? Who are responsible for tampering with Christ's Words of Institution of the Holy Eucharist? Who are these inventors of new “ecumenical” rites, cunningly devised to supplant and therefore suppress the true and valid Catholic rites? The answer to these questions is no obscure mystery, for, as indicated on the published versions of these liturgical aberrations, the copyrights belong (“all rights reserved”) to the International Committee on English in the Liturgy. Doubtless most Interdum readers are familiar with ICEL, which is the domestic branch of the network of international subversives, all of whom labor tirelessly to spread apostasy and to destroy the faith of Catholics on a global basis. An excellent report on ICEL, covering its personnel, activities, and modus operandi, appeared some time back in Triumph magazine. (The Liturgy Club by Gary Potter.)

We have questioned the validity of the “English Masses,” not because of the fact they are in English instead of the traditional Latin, but because the “translation” (so‑called which the ICEL has foisted upon us actually goes so far as to mutilate the Form of Consecration, which also happens to be the sacramental form for the holy Eucharist.

The purpose of this present article is to show the other side." We will present and then study the ICEL's official “explanation” wy, after nineteen and a half centuries, Catholics are now expected to believe that Our Saviour's words at the Last Supper were, "This is ... My Blood ... shed for all men,” instead of “for many,” which has always been the correct translation of pro multis. However, before considering the actual “explanation” itself, let us take a good look at the person who clearly appears to be the impetus behind this change.

Professor Joachim Jeremias

Without the slightest fear of contradiction we can assert that the original “discoverer,” progenitor and prime mover of the “explanation” for changing Our Lord's words is one Professor Joachir Jeremias. In point of fact, in documenting this official “explanation” the ICEL cites Dr. Jeremias as its “authority” for making this particular change. And rightly so, because to him belongs due credit Indeed as far back as Jan.1963, an article in The Expository Times of Edinburgh mentioned this great discovery of Dr. Jeremias that Our Lord really said “for all men,” noting that this interpretation harmonizes with the idea of “the final salvation of all mankind from the powers of evil, sin and death.”

This evil and dangerous doctrine of “the final salvation of all mankind,” so absolutely at variance with the Church's teaching and so opposed to the clear teaching of Christ Himself, is the actual cornerstone of the whole edifice of heresy being promoted today under the guise Of “ecumenism.” Although this doctrine is not preached openly, explicitly, and in these precise terms (at least not yet on a wide scale), nevertheless it is believed by many; it is the animus of what parades as “'ecumenism.”

Who is Dr. Jeremias, the man whose idea was so powerful that it changed the Form of Consecration of the Mass? Born in 1900, Joachim Jeremias, a non‑Catholic, is the distinguished occupant of the Chair of New Testament in the University of Gottinsen.": Although he started his career in writing some forty years ago, it is not until fairly recently that his “learned works and monographs” began receiving wide acclaim. Included among his books that have been translated into English are: “The Eucharistic Words of Jesus”, “The Prayers of Jesus”, and “"Problems of the Historical Jesus”

His Approach to Scripture

It is not with the eyes of faith that Professor Jeremias approaches Holy Writ, but with the eyes of a critical gramarian, armed with his lexicons and many rules about aorist subjunctives, etc. As he himself tells us: “The investigation of the eucharistic words of Jesus themselves is best begun by discussing the problem of literary criticism.” While “literary criticism” perhaps has its slot as a valid tool for investigating the meanings of the Sacred Writings, Catholics who wish to maintain a correct attitude towards the Holy Scriptures must ever be mindful of the condemnations and cautions given by the Supreme Authority of the Church. Thus loyal and orthodox Catholics are aware that in the ”Syllabus of Errors of the Modernists” of Pope St. Pius X, the following proposition was condemned: “Those who believe that God is really the author of Sacred Scripture display excessive simplicity or ignorance.” (#9). And in #12 of the same Syllabus the following is also condemned: “The exegete...must first put aside all preconceived opinions concerning the supernatural origin of Sacred Scripture, and must not interpret it otherwise than merely human documents.”

It is certainly not evident that Dr. Jeremias looks upon Holy Writ as the authentic Word of God, nor upon the Evangelists as men singled out by God to be His scribes who, inspired by the Holy Ghost, wrote down exactly what God intended to be revealed to men. “We need not trouble ourselves in any detail,” writes Jeremias, “over the question whether the..‑passages in which God is addressed as ‘Father’ in the prayers of Jesus are authentic or not.”(P.O.J., p.57). (Note: The code, P O.J., is used herein for The Prayers of Jesus, a published collection of essays by J. Jeremias, and the code, E.W.J., refers to his book entitled “The Eucharist Words of Jesus”.)

“Now it is very probable that parts of the passages in the gospels which mention Jesus' prayer are to be attributed to the editing of the evangelists.” (P.O.J.,p.76) Christ at the Last Supper did not really say everything that St. Paul records, for “Paul adds to the word over the wine” (E.W.J.,p.115). But everyone will be relieved, we are sure, to learn that the phrase, “My Blood of the covenant,” quite possibly was actually spoken by Our Lord because it passes all of Jeremiast linguistic tests.”(The possibility [emphsis] added; that Jesus spoke of the covenant at the Last Supper cannot be disputed”" (E.W.J., p.l95).

St. Matthew “"has added,” claims Dr. Jeremias, “on his own initiative” to what St. Mark wrote in 10:40 (P.O.J.,p.44). Christ's parable of the cockle (Matt.13:36‑43) was obviously a fabrication of St. Matthew since it “bears such strong traces of Matthaean linguistic peculiarities” (P.O.J., p.31).

Unlike Dr. Jeremias, St. John has missed “the central point of Jesus' message,” because of his “ignorance of the way in which the message was limited to the group of disciples” P.O.J., p. 53).

So much for Joachim Jeremias' attitude towards Sacred Scripture and the Evangelists. Next we move on to his “theolosy.” Infected as he is with the Modernists' mentality, he has in his writings countless doctrinal errors, inimical to the Catholic Faith. Had his works appeared during the reign of St. Pius X (for example), and had there been even the slightest indications that Catholics were actually reading them, that august and saintly Pontiff would have summarily placed them on the Index of Forbidden Books. Ominous it is that this author is now cited as the “authority” for making over the Catholic liturgy.

The “Theology.” of Dr. Jeremias

Any Catholic who understands the Mass should consider it an insult to his intelligence as well as an attack upon the Faith to be told: by anyone that the “meal celebrations” (i.e., the Masses)of the early Christians were celebrated without wine! But nonsenrse such as this, when it comes from Dr. Jeremias' brilliant pen apparently does not bother the ICEL Innovators, least of all does it discredit in their eyes their “great authority.” The early Christians, explains the professor, who “were mastly from the poorer strata of society, did not always have wine available,” and thus the practice of using only the bread “not only was freqent in the earliest period, but was actually the rule" (E.W J., p.ll5). Adduced as “evldence” to support this outrageous claim is, believe it or not, a passage from St. Paul's account of the Last Supper. In Our Lord's command: “This do ye as often as you shall drink, for the comemoration of Me” (I Cor. 11:25), the phrase “as often as vou shall drink” was, so Jeremias surmises, added by Paul, and what Paul meant by this insertion was this: As often as you have the wine! which, of course, proves that they often didn't have wine, and therefore were forced to go ahead and celebrate under the one species of bread alone! All this, mind you, from the wizard whom the ICEL consulted to help on the translation of “pro_multis”!

Not surprisingly, Jeremias attacks the doctrine of transubstantiation, not openly but by subtle inference. Numerous passages of his either say or imply that the 'Words of Institution were spoken as a similitude (E.W.J.,p.202, pps. 223‑25, e g.). Moreover he even goes so far as to imply that St.Paul himsel did not consider the “gift of the Eucharist to be the true Body and Blood of Christ.” "To share in the atoning death of Jesus', he writes, “and to become part of the redeemed communitv‑‑ that is, according to Paul the gift of the Eucharist. This interpretation tallies with our exegesis given in detail” (E.W.J.,p.237). “As recipients o Jesus' gift the disciples are representatives of the new people of God” (ibid.).

AttacksThe Divinity of Christ

When Dr. Jeremias speaks above of “the atoning death of Jesus,” one must rot mistake or think that he means the unique expiatory Sacrifice of the Son of God according to Catholic teaching. “Every death has atoning power,” he explains, “even that of a criminal if he dies penitent” (E.W.J., p.231). Any innocent death “offered to God has vicarious power of atonement for others,” and thus Christ's Death “is the vicarious death of the suffering servant” (ibid.).

Referring to Our Lord as “the suffering servant of God" is a favorite theme of Professor Jeremias. Granted that the word servent is used allegorically in reference to the M.essias in a few places in the Old Testament; for Dr. Jere.mias, however, the use of this term is only one of his many subtle ways of attacking the Divinity of Christ. To rebut this heresy we can do no better here than to repeat the words of Pope Adrian I :

“O you impious, and you who are ungrateful for so many benefits, do you not fear to whisper with a poisonous mouth that He, our liberator, is...a mere man subject to human misfortune, and what is a disgrace to say, that He is a servant? ... Why are you not afraid, O querulous detractors, () men odious to God, to call Him servant, He has freed you from the servitude of the devil? ... For, although in the imperfect representation of thc prophet He was called servant [cf. Job 1: 8 ff. ] because of the condition of servile form which He assumed from the Virgin ... we understand that this was said both historically of holy Job and allegorically of Christ.”[Emphasis added.]

Can Joachim Jeremias be called a Christian? Does he believe that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God the Father, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Word made flesh? Or does he believe only in the humanitv of Our Lord, that Jesus was a remarkable man who had a “special relationship” with God and who received a “full revelation” from God?

“None the less we can see from the simile [emphcsis added: the 'simile' is Christ's Words of Institution at the Last Supper]. that Jesus did expect a violent death (E. W. J. p.225). As true God, Jesus did not “expect” a violent death; from all eternity He knew what death the Son of Man would die. As St. John tells us, He even foretold the manner of His Death: “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to Myself. Now this He said, signifying by what death He was to die.” (John 12:22)

When Our Lord said: “Do this for a commemoration of Me,” what He actually meant, if we are to believe Professor Jeremias, was this: “Do this so that God may remember me” (E.W.J., p.252 and p.255).

Taking up the passage from Matt.11,27: “A11 things are delivered to Me by My Father,” Dr. Jeremias explains it as meaning: “God has given me a full revelation”(P.O.J.,p.49). This “full revelation” was granted to Jesus at some point in time. Listen to Jeremias: “We do not know when and where Jesus received the revelation in which God allowed him to participate in complete divine knowledge‑‑as a father allows his son to share in knowledge [emphasis added] ... Perhaps we should think of the baptism” (P.O.J., p. 52). Now perhaps Joachim Jeremias may wish to conjecture that at Our Lord's baptism He received “"the revelation,”" but true Christians believe:

" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him: and without Him, was made nothing that was made.”

“Jesus' use of abba expresses a special relationship with God"" (P.O.J., p.621 “With the simple 'Abba, dear father', the primitive church took over the central element of Jesus' faith in God”" (P.O.J., p.65. ‑‑Emphasis added. No further comment.).

“I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to the little ones” (Matt. 11:25 and Luke 10:21). “Jesus counted himself among 'the little ones”, Dr. Jeremias tells us ‑and this is too much!‑‑‑ “He rejoices that he is the 'little one' of God, his beloved child, to whom the revelation has been given”(P.O.J., p. 52).

‑

Could Jeremios Be Right' About “AII Men”

The reader must not construe the foregoing discussion as a personal attack upon Professor Joachim Jerermias. It was merely a necessary exposition of the ideas, philosophy and theological thinking of the man who furnished the impetus behind the mutilation of the Consecration Form. The reason for giving so many quotations from his works is to obviate the frequently‑repeated accusation of “quoting out of context.”

And yet, one may ask, isn't it possible at least, that, despite his demonstrable heterodoxy, he is nevertheless correct in his assertion that “all men” is the proper wording in the place in question? To see how he could be correct is difficult. There is simply too much Catholic teaching in favor of “for many” : the words of Holy Scripture as they have always been understood, the universal liturgical Tradition of the Church, the teachings of several Popes, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which explicitly rejects and repudiates the “for all men” rendition, and, finally, the lucid explanations of several Doctors of the Church(e.g., Sts. Thomas Aquinas and Alphonsus).

Very forcibly to our minds come these words of St. Pius X, writing about the Modernists: “To hear them talk about their works on the Sacred Books,...one would imagine that before them nobody ever even glanced through the pages of Scripture, whereas, the truth is that a whole multitude of doctors, infinitely superior to them in genius, in erudition, in sanctity, have sifted them, have thanked God more and more, the deeper they have gone into them, for His divine bounty in having vouchsafed to speak thus to men." (Pascandi) ‑

ICEI's Sole “Explanation”

As promised earlier, we will now with no further delay take up the ICEL's “explanation.”’" It is not based on sacramental theology, nor on Holy Scripture as such, nor on Tradition. Neither does it invoke the authority of the Magisterium or that of the Doctors of the Church. But all this goes without saying, because, as mentioned just above, all these sources are opposed to the “all men” rendition. On precisely what grounds, then, do they stand in attempting to justify their unprecedented meddling with the FORM OF A SACRAMENT?

Philology is the answer! Yes indeed, it is from a so‑called study of literary texts and linguistics that these great scholars have discovered that Our Lord at the Last Supper, in consecrating the wine, really said: This is... My Blood...shed for all men. “Proof” of this is offered on pp. 34‑5 of the ICEL's booklet, “The Roman Canon in English Translation” Here in toto is the learned “explanation” :

line 65: Pro multis.

Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic possess a word for ‘all’. The word rabbim or ‘muliitude’ 'thus served also in the inclusive sense for ‘the whole’, even though the corresponding Greek and the Latin appear to have an exclusive sense i.e.. ‘the many’ rather than ‘the all’. Cf. J. Jerermias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (NewYork, 1966, pp. 179~1S2, 229.

(The preceding excerpt is a photographic reproduction of the original, with slight reduction in size. I.e. in the original publication, ed.)

Let us make sure we understand this "explanation." Our Saviour spoke Aramaic, and not Latin or Greek. In the Aramaic language (and also in the Hebrew) there is not a single word meaning “all”. This indeed is the main plank of the araument : “Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic possess[sic] a word for 'all'.”" Hence, infers the ICEL, anyone wishing to express in those languages the idea “all” was forced to use a word with a double meaning, a word which in some instances could be construed to mean “many” (the so‑called 'exclusive sense'), and in other instances was construed to mean “all” (its socalled 'inclusive sense'). Thus handicapped by this linguistic impediment, a quirk of His native language, Our Lord was forced to employ this ambiguous word when He said: This is My Blood...shed for all men. For over nineteen centuries, all over the world and in a multitude of languages, this ambiguous word was incorrectly given its 'exclusive sense' of “many,” but the 'inclusive sense' of “all” was what Our Lord actually meant.

The foregoing paragraph (which, for the sake of absolute clarity, is necessarily somewhat longer than the ICEL's terse “explanation”), is an accurate re‑phrasing of their case. Merely to point out how slavishly the ICEL has followed Dr. Joachim Jeremias, we here reproduce the supporting excerpt which the ICEL cites from p. 179 of his book The Eucharistic Words of Jesus:

15.14.24 pollon (Greek for ‘many’). While ‘many’ in Greek (as in English) stands in opposition to ‘all’, and therefore has the exclusive sense (‘many, but not all’), Hebrew rabbin can have the inclusive sense (‘the whole, comprising many individuals’). This inclusive use is connected with the fact that Hebrew and Aramaic possess no word for ‘all’.

(The above is a photographic reproduction of the original, with slight reduction in size. Again n the original – ed.)

Some Preliminary Comments

First of all and let this be stressed, the above is the sole explanation the ICEL has offered for making this change to “for all men.” Every reasonable man will agree that if this, the sole reason, is exploded as being absolutetly groundless and founded on a falsity, then the whole justification (pretext is a better word) for the “for all men” rendering has collapsed; and there remains no longer the slightest excuse for continuing to use this mutilated form, nor tolerating its use. Their Excellencies, the bishops in our country, are doubtless reasonable men.

Before proceeding in earnest with our demonstration, let us make several incidental observations:

(1) The chief piece of “evidence” (Exhibit A, as it were) in the ICEL's case is the word rabbim, which is a hebrew word. Nov, whereas it is certain that the everyday language of Our Lord was not Hlebrew, but Aramaic (a fact which Jeremias himself notes on p.196); and whereas there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that Our Lord spoke at the Last Supper in Hebrew (another fact attested to by Dr. Jeremia‑ himself on p.l98); and whereas these words or orginally came down to us via St. Mark’s Gospel, which that Evangelist wrote, not in Hebrew, . but in. Greek; therefore, how does the Hebrew word 'rabbim' even begin to enter the picture at all?

(2) When expounding their “red herring” Hebrew word, rabbim, ~he ICEL Innovators are very emphatic (even bordering on clarity); but when they get around to the “corresponding Greek and Latin”" ‑‑ the Greek being what is really to the point‑‑, they lapse into vagueness. The Greek word far many used by St. Mark, so they say, only “appears” to have the exclusive sense of “many.” “appears” indeed. In this assertion they are contradicted even by Jeremias, who concedes that “many” in Greek (as in English) stands in. opposition to “all”, and therefore has the exclusive sense (cf. the excerpt presented earlier).

But enough! These comments wil1 seem somewhat superfluous anyway, once we have gotten around to their main plank. namely: In the Aramaic language there is not a single word meaning “all”.

Cordinal Wiseman Exposes A Houx

At this poin.t it will be very instructive to study an earlier theological controversy into which “philology” became similarly intruded The 16th‑century “reformers,” who denied the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist when confronted with His words: “This is aMy Body,” claimed that Our Lord really; meant by these words: This siqnifies My Body. Some of the earliest of these deniers,inclvding Calvin himself, concocted the absurd argument that in Hebrew (at that time it was‑ generally thought that Our Lord spoke Hebrew) there simply is no word at all which means signifies. And so, Christ, having to make do wth the language He spoke, was forced to use the expression : This is My Body, in order to covey the idea : This signifies My Body.

Cardinal Wiseman, writing much later, reviewed the case: “"Calvin...and others argued against the Catholic interpretation: of the Words of Institution, on the ground that Our Saviour spoke Hebrew, and not Greek; and that in the Hebrew language, there is rot a single word meaning to represent. Hence they concluded, that anyone wishing to express in that language that one object was figurative of another, he could not possibly do it otherwise than by saying that it was that thing.”

“Wolfrus, after Hackspaan,”' continues Wiseman, “rightly answered to this argument, that if the Hebrew had been ambiguous, the Evangelists, writing in Greek, a languagse in which the verb substantive was not ambiguous, would have used a verb more accurately explaining to their readers what they conceived the meaning of Our Savior's phrase to be.” (and this is precisely the line of argument we presented in Interdum #1, explalaing that St. Mark., the interpreter of St. Peter, most certainly would have written “all men,” if that is what he and St. Peter believed Christ had really intended.)

Dependent as it was upon the supposed quirks of the .Hebrew language, Calvin's argument was eventually derailed, because, as Cardinal Wiseman observed: “But this precise ground could be no longer tenable. For all philologers now agree that the language spoken by our Saviour could not be Hebrew, but Syro‑Chaldaic." (Note: Syro‑Chaldaic = Chaldeo‑Syriac = Aramaic.)

But some fables never die. During Wiseman's day the protestant attack on the Real Presence was vigorously renewed, and‑‑lo and behold! ‑ Calvin's old argument was resurrected. Only now instead of Hebrew, it was Aramaic that was supposedly the “problem” language. “Such a shifting,” noted the Cardinal, “as might suffice to continue a catching argument like this, was easily made; it could cost only a word; the change of a name; for few readers would take the trouble, or have it in their power, to ascertain whether Syro‑Chaldaic any more than Hebrew, had any such terms.”

Some well‑respected scholars did not hesitate to risk their very academic reputations on the promotion of this hoax. Again Wiseman:

“A good bold assertion, especially coming from a mon who, has a reputation for knowledge in the department of science to which it belongs, will go a great way with most readers, and a negative assertion no one can expect you to prove. If I assert that in a language there is no word for a certain idea; if I say, for instance, that in Italian there is no equivalent for our word 'spleen' or 'cant,' what proof con I possibly bring, except an acquaintance with the language? I throw down a gauntlet when I make the assertion; I defy others to show the contrary; and one example overthrows all my argument.”

However, no assertion could be, I suppose, too bold against popery, and no art too slippery, to gain an argument against its doctrines. Dr. Adam Clarke, a man of some celebrity as an Orientalist, fearlessly cast his credit upon the assertion that Syro‑Chaldoic affords no word which our Saviour could have used, in instituting a type of His Body, except the verb 'to be.'

These are his words ‑‑ 'In the Hebrew, Choldee and Chaldea‑Syriac languages; there is no term which expresses to mean, signify, or denote; though both the Greek and Latin abound with them. Hence the Hebrews use a figure, and say is, for it signifies.”

Once advanced by an eminent scholar, this learned argument became parroted far and wide by many others. The above passage of Dr. Clarke was transcribed nearly verbatim by a certain Mr. Hartvrell Horne, who touched it up a bit with a brilliant concluding remark: “Hence it is that we find the expression it is so frequently used in the sacred writings for it represents. A similarly brilliant claim, which we have heard often of late, is that many is frequently used in the Sacred Writings for all. This, of course, like Mr. Horne' s remark, proves exactly nothing about the specific case at hand .

And thus the hoax spread. “It is no wonder,” observed Cardinal Wiseman, “that other authors should have gone on copying these authorities, giving, doubtless, implicit credence to persons who had acquired a reputation for the knowledge of biblical and oriental literature.”

All the excerpts we have quoted thus far from Cardinal Wiseman's pen,though they are in themselves plenty devastating, are actually only what might be thought of as His Eminence's “warm‑up.” Next comes his coup de qrace. On page 287 of his book (from which we have been quoting) he displays a table which summarizes his findings. This tabular arrangement indicates FORTY‑FIVE different words in Aramaic which Our Lord could have used if He had wanted to say: This signifies.(!) “And this is the Syriac language,” the redoubtable Cardinal dryly concludes, “of. which Dr. Clarke had the hardihood to assert that it had not one single word with this meaning.”

The Cornerstone

Now, at length, let us hie ourselves back to the ICEL and the cornerstone of these Innovators' “explanation” namely, that Aramaic has no word at all which means “all”.

Just as certainly as Aramaic has a word for “certainly”, and a word for “arrogance” ‑‑arrogance as in ICEL‑‑,so also it has a word which unequivocally, and as opposed to the idea of “all”, means “many”; and this word for “many” happens to be (aramaic word is given – ed.) And also the aramaic language has a word for “"all”", as opposed to “many”, and we are coming to that.

Although certain Hebrew texts are recognized as translations from an Aramaic original there is in the entire Old Testament only a handful of places where actual Aramaic passages occur, notably certain sections from the Book of Daniel. And it so happens that “All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing," which is from Daniel (4,32), is one such passage where texts in the original Aramaic are extant. The Aramaic phrase for “all the inhabitants of the earth" ‑‑ and this is getting quite close to “all men,” wouldn't you say? ‑is as follows: (Aramaic word given – ed.) This passage illustrates exactly how the Aramaic word (all) is used in an actual biblical phrase.

A series of volumes entitled Porta Linguarum Orientalium (The Gateway of Oriental Language has been published in Weisbaden, Germany, by Otto Harrassawitz. Included as No. V in this series is a valuable little text, published in 1961, having been authored by Franz Rosenthal. This particular text, which bears the title, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic, devotes an entire section to an explanation of the ancient Aramaic word for “all,” “every” “everyone” etc. In the process of illustrating the uses of this particular word ‑‑ which is the same . word (kol) mentioned above, a variation of which is (kolia) : ''everyone"‑‑ this grammar text even furnishes as an example the expression in Aramaic for “all mankind”! A part of this section (i.e., XII) of this book, from. pp. 41‑2, is photographically reproduced here, slightly reduced in size:

_

~

96…….. is a noun meaning “totality.” cf. ……kolla “everything, everyone” D2:49. 4:9, 18, 25. This form may also be used I a quasi-adverbial manner: …….”well being completely” E 5:7. (…. Indicates the Aramaic which I have not the ability to transcribe. –ed.)

Preceding…eg.n oun without the article, it means “every, any.” Preceding a determined noun in the sg., it means “entire, whole.” And preceding a determined noun in the pl. or a collective eg.(i.e. …………”all mankind” or being followed by the pl. of the pronominal suffix, or the elative pronoun, or the demonstrative pronoun used as a noun (……”all this”), it means “all.”

What temerity! Oh, what unmitigated depravity! To dare to tamper with the Sacred Words of the Saviour Himself! To meddle with the sacramental form, the unchangeable substance, of the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist! .And this those arrogant Innovators have done, offering as their sole reason the absurd fraud that Aramaic has no word for “all”!

Indeed Joachim Jeremias and the ICEL's subversives rust be reckoned as the world's greatest ventriloquists, as they have made their bogus words, “for all men,” to be heard issuing forth from the lips of their tens of thousands of dummies. Oh, but we are told, this “form” simply must be valid because the bishops have approved it. The Son of God will not be mocked again Mocked He was once, by a blind and ungrateful people. But never again by His own, though the blind and ungrateful are still among them.

How many of those unsuspecting priests ‑‑ we mean those of the true and orthodox stripe ‑would be “obediently following their bishops” and reciting this counterfeit "form" if they did but know the facts about “for all men”"? if they did but know the “theology” of Professor Joachim Jeremias, their head ventriloquist.

_ P.H.O.

THE PASSAGE FROM NOTITIA DEALING WITH THE SIX PROTESTANTS INVOLVED IN THE ESTABLISHING OF THE NEW MASS.

Glossae

GLI OSSERVATORI AL “CON'SILIUM”

Si tratta di una questione... elegante, ,na forse vale la pena, una volta tanto, trattarne, giacche ritorna, a periodi, su riviste e fogliucoli, settimanali e quotiliani, com un'arma di battaglia...

La cosa e limpida. Non ci sono “ misteri”, ne sull'identita personale degli osservatori, ne sul loro ruolo nel ·”Consilium”.

‑ ‑1 Nell'Udienza del 2 dicermbre 1965, il Cerdinale Giacomo Lercaro, Presidente del “Consilium”, lascio al Santo Padre un esposto nel quale si diccua che qualche membro della Chiesa Anglicana, impegnto ,nella revisione della liturgia di que!la Chiesa, avoua fatto sapere, per via indirette, che era interessato a seguire i lavori del “Consilium”..‑‑ Forse non sarebbe male, si annotava, una mutua conoscenza delle ricerche di studio e degli schemi potrebbe essere un elemento positivo di avvicinamento.

Per alcun.e parti della liturgia, si aggiangeva, la via sembra piu accessibile, per esempio, se si potesse giungere atla formazione di un comune “ordo psallendi” e di un comune schema di “lectio divina”: cio potrebbe giovare spiritualmente e psicologicarnente alla unione.

‑ ‑ Anche altre Confessioni, si rilevava infine, mostrano inieresse per le riforma liturgica della Chiesa romana.

11 14 dicembre successivo giunse risposta positiva del Santo Padre. Il “Consilium” fu, pregato di stabilire opportun.e norme assiene Segretaria per l'Unione dei Cristiani, la Segreteria di Stato e la S. Congregazione “ pro Doctrina fidei”.

‑ Tra il dicembre '65 e l'agosto `66 intercorse un mutuo scambio di vedute e informazioni fra i sopracitati Uffici e il “Consilium” etc il Segretariato per l'Unione dei Cristiani e le diverse Comunita ecclesiali interessate, alto scopo di definire i nominativi e le modalita del!a partecipazione.

Finalamente, il 23 agosto 1966, la lista degli “Ossevati,”, approvata dalla Segreteria di Stato e dalla S. Congregazione per la Dottrinaa della fede, risulto cosi composta:

La Comunita Anglicana designo (1” luglio):

1. Rev. Can. Ronald C. D. Jasper, D. D., di Londra, Presidente della Commissione liturgica della Chiesa Anglicana d'Inghilterra.

2. Rev. Dr. Massey H. Shepherd, Jr., de la California, Professore alla”Church Divinity School of the Pacific”.

Il “World Council of Churches” nomino (l2 agosto): ‑.

3. Prof. A. Raymond George, Dottore del Wesley College di Headingley, Leeds, Ingliterra “La Lutheran World Federation” indico (12 agosto):

4. Pestore Friedrick‑Wilhelm Kunneth, di Ginevra, Segretario della Commissione “for Worship and spiritual Life”

Infine la Comunita di Taize scelse:

5. Pastore Fr.. Max Thurian, Sottopriore della Comunita

.

Fu anche ventilata l'idea di invitare come ossertatore un reppresentante della Chiesa ortodossa; ma l'iniziativa non ebbe segulto.

L'anno dopo, invece, fu aggiunnto ancora un rappresentante dei Metodisti Americani nella persona del

6. Rev. Eugene L. Brand, di New York.

2. Quale fu il ruolo che ebbero gli “osservatori” nel “Consilium”? Nessun altro che quello di... “osservatori”. Arzitutto essi . presero parte solo alle adunanze di studio. In secondo luogo iE loro attleggiamento hi di una discrezione impareggiabile. Mai intervennero nelle discussionri, mai chiesero la parola.

Erano i primi ad arrivare alle adunanze, gli ultimi a lasciare d’aula; sempre affabili, gentili, parchi di parole, disposti ad accogliere amabi!mente la conversazione richiesta.

Solo una volta il “plenum” del “Consilium decise di chiedere il parere “collegiale” degli osservatori. Fu quando si discusse il problema dei cicli delle letture nella celebrazione eucaristica

C’erano tre possiblita conservare un solo ciclo; fare tre cicli; arrivare a guattro cicli. Prevclse la tesi che propendevn per tre cicli di letture uno per ogni sinottico, utilizzando il Vangelo di S. Gioovanni e per integrare Marco, piu corto degli altri due sinottici, e per alcuni tempi del!'ano, come il tempo pasquale, in conformita della venerabile tradizione romana.

Ed ecco allora un altro interrogativo: accettando tre cicli si doreva conservare intatto quel!o esistente nel Misssle Romano, o conveniva riprendere tutto “ex novo”?

Per la prima solazione propendeva un gruppo di periti e a!cuni Padri, con a capo il Card. Agostino Bea. Il motivo piu forte era quello ecumenico: I'ordine tradizionale delle letture nella celebrazione eucaristica e usato in molte comunita ecclesiali non cattoliche, noninatamente presso i Luterani. Sembrava percio piu prudente, no tralasciare guesto elemento di armonia per favorire l'intesa e l'unione.

Per la seconda soluzione era il gruppo di studio che dirigeva i lavori del Lezionario con a capo il P. Cipriano Vagaggini, OSB.

La maggioranza per questa soluzione era certa. Ma, per assicurorsi che la tesi rispecchiasse verantente anche il pensiero della altre communita ecclesiali, fu deciso di tenere un’adunanza mista tra i cinque “osservatori” e i periti del “Consilium”.

L'adunanza si tenne nel pomeriggio del 9 ottobre 1966 xel Palazzo di S. Marta, dove avevano Iuogo le rinuioni del “Consilium” Il giorno successivo, 10) ottobre, all'inizio della seduta pleniria il can. Jasper, anglicano, lesse una dichiarazio nella quale si diceva che gli “ osservatori”:

a) non potevano prendere nessuna decisione, perche nessuno di loro poteva impegnarsi per la communita ecclesiale, di cui faceva parte;

b) non volevano che ragioni ecumenica influuissero per impedire l'abbando el lezionario tradizionale. Arche loro, infatti, desideravano una simnile revisione e aspettavano i risultati della venerabile Chicsa Romna;

. c) avanzavano la proposta che il nuovo lezionario romano fosse esperimentato per un periodo conveniente, e che nel frattempo si potessero prendre gli opportuni accordi per addivenire a un lezionerio concordato tra la Chiesa romana e la altre comunita ecclesiali.

Fu proposto, quindi, ai Padrt il quesito: “Placetne ut lectiortes in Alissa disponantur spatio trium annorum nova dispositioine lectionum, nulla ratione habita ad cyclum t?unc exsistentem in 'Missali Romano?”

ll resultato fu: “Placet omnibus”

Cosi il problema rimase risotto.

Fu l’unico interverto degli ossertatori al “ Consilium” intervento votuto dei Padri, accolto dagli osservatori, e concluso con taniogarbo, rispett e discrezione. ‑‑

3. E la terza preghiera escaristica? Non e stata forse fatta con la collaborazione dei protestanti?

Niente di niente.

La stesura dello schema base della terza anafora fu compiuta, in tre mesi di lavoro (estate 1965) alla biblioteca dell’abbazia di Mont Cesar di Lovanio, da uno dei piu valenti consusltori del “Conmsilium”, ora membro della Commissione teologica internazionale, el quale tutti riconoscono competenza teologica di prim'ordine unita ad una rara conoscenza della liturgia. Successivamente lo schema fu minuziosamente esaminato e perfeziorato, in piu riprese, dal Gruppo di studio incaricato della riforma del rito della Missa. Qgnuno ne puo vedere i nomi nell'Elenchus del persornale del “Coissilium”. Ulteriori combiamenti furono apportai qando lo schema passo ai Padri del “Con silium”, (sessione VIII, aprile 1967).

Ci fu, poi, l'esame da parte degli altri organismi interessati e competenti della Santa Sede Da questa quadruplice fase cribratrice ~usci il testo della terza preghoiera eucaristica, che, infine, approvata del Santo Padre Paolo VI, entro nel Missale romano.

Ogni altra afferrmazione e frutto di fantasia, di prevenzione o di malevola insinnazione. Non ha alcun fodamento di verita.

Si era detto che la Terza Istruzione della Congregazione ded Culto aveva “chiuso “, e fatto fare passi all'indietro al movimento pastoral.‑.‑liturgico, per frenare gli eccessi degli innovatori sconsidersti. Or bisogna rico noscere che questo Direttorio (per le Messe con i fanciulli), che va insurito nela parte “istitutiva” del nuovo messale romano, e la smentrita piu efficace a queste previsioni pessimistiche; e percio va accolto e valorizzato non solo per quel che dice espressamente, ma sopratrutto per quel che puo e vuole significare”. . (E. Lodi, Direttorso per le Messe con i fanciuloli in Rivista di Pastorale liturgica 11, 1964, n. 3, p. 48.)

EPIKLESIS – AN ARTICLE BY ADRIAN FORTESQUE TAKEN FROM THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, (1913)

Epiklesis (Gr.Epiklesis; Lat. invocotio) is the name of a prayer that ocours in all Eastern liturgies (and originally in Western liturgies also) after the words of Institution, in which the celebrant prays that God may send down His Holy Spirit to change this bread and wine into the Body and Blood of His Son. This form has given rise to one of the chief controversies between the Eastern and Western Churches, inasmuch as all Eastern schismaties now believe that the Epiklesls, and not the words of Institution is the essential form (or at least the essential compiement) of the sacrament.

Form of the Epiklesis.—It is certain that all the old liturgies contained such a prayer. For instance, the Liturgy of the ApostolicConstitutions, immediately after the recital of the words of Institution, goes on to the Anamnesis—“ Remembering therefore His Passion . . .” in which occur the words: “Thou, the God who lackest nothing, being pleased with them (the Offerings) for the honour of Thy Christ, and sending down Thy Holy Spirit on this sacrifice, the witness of the Passion of the Lord Jesus' to manifest ( Greek othene) this bread as the Body of Thy Christ and this chalice as the Blood of Thy Christ . . . “ (Blightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western, I, 21) So the Greek and Syrian Liturgies of St. James (ibid. 54, 88‑89), the Alexandrine Liturgies (ibid., 134, 179) the Abyssinian Rite (ibid., 233), those of the Nestorians (ibid., 287) and Armenians (ibid., 439). The Epiklesis in the Byzantine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is said thus: “ We offer to Thee this reasonable and unbloody saerifice; and we beg Thee, we ask Thee, we pray Thee that Thou, sending down Thy Holy Spirit on us and on these present gifts” (the Deacon says: “Bless, Sir, the holy bread”) “make this bread into the Precious Body of Thy Christ” (Deacon: “Amen. Bless, Sir, the holy chalice”) “and that which is in this chalice, the Preecous Blood of Thy Christ” (Deacon: “Amen Bless, Sir, both”) “changing [mirabalon] them by Thy Holy Spirit" (Deacon: "Amen,Amen,Amen."). (Brightman, op. Cit. I, 386‑387.)

Nor is there any doubt that the Western rites at one time eontained similar invocations. The Gallican Llturgy had variable forms according to the feast. That for the Circumcision was: “Haec nos, Domine instituta et praecepta retinentes suppliciter oramus uti hoc sacrificium suscipere et benedicere et sanctificare digneris: ut fiat nobis eucharistia legitima in tuo Fiblque tui nomineet Spiritus sancti, in transformationem corporis ac sanguinis domini Dei nostri Jesu Christi unigeniti tui, per quem omnia creas. . . “ (Duchesne, “Origines du culte chretien”, 2nd ed. Paris,1898, p. 208, taken from St. Germanus of Paris d. 576) There are many allusions to the Gallican Invocaton, for instance St. Isidore of Seville (De eccl. officilis, I, 15, etc.). The Roman Rite too at one tilme had an Epiklesis after the words of Institution. Pope Gelasius I (492 496) refers to it plainly: “ Quomodo ad divini mysterii consecrationem coelestis Sptritus adveniet, si sacerdos . . . criminosis plenus actionibus reprobetur?” (“Epp. Fragm.”, vii, in Thiel, “Epp. Rom. Pont.”, I, 486.) Watterieh (Der Konsekrationsmoment im h. Abendmahl, 1896, pp. 133 sq.) brings other evidences of the old Roman Invocation. He (p. 166) and Drews (Entstehungsgesch. des Kanons, 1902, p. 28) think that several secrets in the Leonine Sacramentary were originally Invocations (see article CANON OF THE MASS). Of this Invocation we have now only a fragment, with the essential clause left out—our prayer: “Suppliees te rogamus” (Duchesne, op. cit., 173‑5). It seems that an early insistence on the words of Institution as the form of Consecration (see, for instance, Ps.‑Ambrose, “DeMysteriis”, IX, 52, and “De Saeramentis”", IV, 4, 14‑15, 23; St. Augustine, Sermo eexxvii in P. L., XXXVIII, 1099) led in the West to the negliecet and mutilation of the Epiklesis.

Origin.—It should be noticed that the Epiklesis for the Holy Eucharist is only one of many such forms. In other sacraments and blessings similar prayers were used, to ask God to send His Holy Spirit to sanctify the matter. There was an Epiklesis for the water of baptism. Tertullian (De bapt., iv), Optatus of Mileve (“De schism. Don.”, III, ii, VI, iii, in “Corp. Script. eccl. Latin.”, vol. XXVI, 69, 148, 149), St. Jerome (“Contra Lucif.”, vi, vii), St. Augustine (“De bapt.,” V xx, xxviii), in the West; and St. Basil (De Spir. Sancto, xv, 35), St. Gregory of Nyssa (“Orat. cat. magn.” xxxiii), and St. Cyril of Jerusalem (“Cat.” iii, 3), in the East, refer to it. In Egypt especially, Epikleses were used to bless wine, oil, milk, etc. In all these cases (including that of the Holy Eucharist) the idea of invoking the Holy Ghost to sanctify is a natural one derived from Scripture (Joel, ii, 32; Acts, ii, 21, cf. Rom., x, 13, I Cor., i, 2). That in the Liturgy the Invocation should occur after the words of Institution is only one more case of many which show that people were not much concerned about the exact instant at which all the essence of the sacrament was complete. They looked upon the whole Consecration‑prayer as one simple thing. In it the words of Institution always occur (with the doubtful exception of the Nestorian Rite); they believed that Christ would, according to His promise, do the rest. But they did not ask at which exact moment the change takes place. Besides the words of Institution there are many other blessings prayers, and signs of the cross, some of which came before and some after the words, and all, including the words themselves, combine to make up the one Canon of which the effect is Transubstantiation. So also in our baptism and ordination services, part of the forms and prayers whose effect is the sacramental grace comes, in order of time, after the essential words. It was not till Scholastic times that theologians began to discuss the minimum of form required for the essence of each sacrament.

The Controversy—The Catholic Church has decided the question by making us kneel and adore the Holy Eucharist immediately after the words of Institution and by letting her old Invocation practically disappear. On the other hand Orthodox theologians all consider the Epiklesis as being at least an essential part of the Consecration. In this question they have two schools. Some, Peter Mogilas, for instance, consider the Epiklesis alone as consecrating (Ximmel Monumenta fidei eccl. orient., Jena, 1850, I 180), so that presumably the words of Institution might be left out without affecting the validity of the sacrament. But the greater number, and now apparently all, require the words of Institution too. They must be said not merely historically, but as the first part of the essential form; they sow as it were the seed that comes forth and is perfected by the Epiklesis. Both elements, then, are essential. This is the theory defended by their theologians at the Council of Florence (1439). A deputation of Latins and Greeks was appointed then to discuss the question. The Greeks maintained that both forms are necessary, that Transubstantiation does not take place till the second one (the Epiklesis) is pronounced, and that the Latin “Supplices te rogamus” is a true Epiklesis having the same effect as theirs. On the other hand the Dominican John of Torquemada defended the Western position that the words of Institution alone and at once consecrate (Hardouin, IX, 977 sqq.). The decree of the Couneil eventually defined this (“quod illa verba divina Salvatoris omnem virtutem transsubstantiationis habent” ibid., see also the decree for the Armenians: “forma huius saeramenti sunt verba Salvatoris” in Denziger, 10th ed., no. 698‑old no. 593). Cardinal Bessarion afterwards wrote a book (De Saeramento Eucharistire et quibus verbis Christi corpus conficitur, 1462, in P. G., CLXI, 494‑525), to whom Marcus Eugenicus of Ephesus answered in a treatise with a long title “That not only by the sound of the Lord's words are the divine gifts sanctified, but (in addition) by the prayer after these and by the consecration of the priest in the strength of the Holy Ghost”.

The official Euchologion of the Orthodox Church has a note after the words of Institution to explain that: “Since the demonstrative pronouns: This is my body, and again: This is my blood, do not refer to the Offerings that are present, but to those which Jesus taking in His hands and blessing, gave to His Disciples; therefore those words of the Lord are repeated as a narrative, and consequently it is superfluous to show the Offerings (by an elevation) and indeed contrary to the right mind of the Eastern Church of Christ” (ed. Venice, 1898, p. 63). This would seem to imply that Christ's words have no part in the form of the sacrament. On the other hand Dositheus in the Synod of Jerusalem (1672) apparently requires both words of Institution and Epiklesis “It [the Holy Eucharist] is instituted by the essential word, i.e. Christ's word and sanctified by the invocation of the Holy Ghost “ (Conf. Dosithei, in Kimmel, op. cit., I, 451), and this seems to be the common theory among the Orthodox in our time. Their arguments for the necessity of the Epiklesis as at any rate the perfecting part of the form are: (1) that the context shows the words of Institution to be used only as a narrative; (2) that otherwise the Epiklesis would be superfluous and deceptive: its very form shows that it consecrates, (3) tradition. The first and second points are not difficult to answer The words of Institution are certainly used historically (“qui pridie quam pateretur, sumpsit panem . . . ae dixit: hoe est enim eorpus meum”, as well as all Eastern forms, is an historical account of what happened at the Last Supper), but this is no proof that they may not be used effectively and with actual meaning too. Given the intention of so doing, they necessarily would be so used. The second point is already answered above the succession of time in sacramental prayers necessarily involves nothing but a dramatic representation of what presumably really takes place in one instant (this point is further evolved by Fortescue, “The Orth. Eastern Church”, pp. 387 sq.). As for tradition, in any case it is only a question of Eastern tradition. In the West there has been a great unanimity in speaking of the words of Institution as consecrating, especially sinee St. Augustine and the disappearance of any real Epiklesis in our Liturgy confirms this. Among Eastern Fathers there is less unanimity. Some, notably St. Cyril of Jerusalem, refer the consecration to the action of the Holy Ghost in a way that seems to imply that the Epiklesls is the moment (St. Cyril, Cat. xix, 7, xxi, 3, xxini, 7 19; cf. Basil, “ De Spir. Sancto”, xxvii sqq.), others as St. John Chrysostom (Hom. i, De prod. Iudae, 6 “ He [Christ] says: This is my body. This word changes the offering”; cf. Hom. ii, in II Tim., i), quite plainly refer Consecration to Christ's words. It should be noted that these Fathers were concerned to defend the Real Presence, not to explain the moment at which it began, that they always thought of the whole Eucharistic prayer as one form, containing both Christ's words and the Invocation, and that a statement that the change takes place by the power of the Holy Ghost does not necessarily show that the writer attaches that change to this special prayer. For instance St. Irenaeus says that “the bread which receives the Invocation of God is not common bread, but a Eucharist” (Adv. haer., IV, xviii 5), and, yet immediately before (IV, xviii, 4), he explains that that bread is the Body of Christ over which the earlier part of the Anaphora is said. The final argument against the Epiklesis as Consecration‑form is the account of the Last Supper in the Gospels. We know what Christ did then, and that He told us to do the same thing. There is no hint of an Epiklesis at the Last Supper.

It may finally be noted that later, in the West too (since the sixteenth century especially), this question aroused some not very important discussion. The Dominican Ambrose Catharinus (sixteenth eentury) thought that our Consecration tales place at an Epiklesis that precedes the recital of Christ's words. This Epiklesis he thinks to be the prayer “Quam oblationem". A few others (including Renaudot) more or less shared his opinion. Against these Hoppe (op. cit. infra) showed that in any case the Epiklesis always follows the words of Institution and that our “Quam Oblationem” cannot be considered one at all. He and others suggest a mitigated theory, according to which the Invocation (in our case the “Supplices te rogamus") belongs not to the essence of the sacrament: but in some way to its (accidental) integrity. John of Torquemada at the Council of Florence (Hardouin, IX, 976), Suarez (De Sacram., dsp. lvlii, 3), Bellarmine (De Euch., iv, 14), Lugo (De Euch., disp. X1, 1) explain that the Invocation of the Holy Ghost is made rather that He may sanctify our reception of the Holy Eucharist. This is a theoretical explanation sought out to account for the fact of the Epiklesis, without giving up our insistence on the words of Institution as alone consecrating. Historically and according to the text of the old invocations they must rather be looked upon as dramatically postponed expressions of what happens at one moment. There are many like cases in our rite (examples quoted in “The Orth. Eastern Church”, loc. cit.).

ADRIAN FORTESCUE.

*********

THE SYLLABUS – DISCUSSION TAKEN FROM THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA (1913)

Syllabus (Ffrom the Greek, meaning “collection”), the name given to two series of propostions containing modern religious errors condemned respectively by Pius IX (1864) and Pius X (1907).

I. THE SYLLABUS OF PIUS IX.—A. Htstory.—The first impulse towards the drawing up of the Syllabus of Pius IX came from the Provincial Council of Spoleto in 1849. Probably on the motion of the Cardinal Archbishop of Perugia, Peeci (later on Leo XIII), a petition was laid before Pius IX to bring together under the form of a Constitution the chief errors of the time and to condemn them. The preparation began in 1852. At first Pius IX entrusted it to Cardinal Fornari, but in 1854 the Commission which had prepared the Bull on the Immaculate Conception took matters in hand. It is not known how far the preparation had advanced when Gerbet, Bishop of Perpignan, issued, in July, 1860, a “Pastoral Instruction on various errors of the present” to his clergy. With Gerbet's “Instruction” begins the second phase of the introductory history of the Syllabus. The “Instruction” had grouped the errors in eighty‑five theses, and it pleased the pope so much, that he set it down as the groundwork upon which a fresh commission, under the presidency of Cardinal Caterini, was to labor. The result of their work was a specification, or cataloguing, of sixty‑one errors with the theological qualifications. In 1862 the whole was laid for examination before three hundred bishops who, on the occasion of the canonization of the Japanese Martyrs, had assembled in Rome. They appear to have approved the list of theses in its essentials. Unfortunately, a weekly paper of Turin, “ Il Mediatore “, hostile to the Church, published the wording and qualifications of the theses, and thereby gave rise to a far‑reaching agitation against the Church. The pope allowed the storm to subside, he withheld the promulgation of these theses, but kept to his plan in what was essential.

The third phase of the introducotory history of the Syllabus begins with the appointment of a new commission by Pius IX; its most prominent member was the Barnabite (afterwards Cardinal) Bilio. The commission took the wording of the errors to be condemned from the official declarations of Pius IX and appended to each of the eighty theses a reference indicating its content, so as to determine the true meaning and the theological value of the subjects treated. With that the preparation for the Syllabus having occupied twelve years, was brought to an end. Of the twenty‑eight points which Cardinal Fornari had drawn up in 1852, twenty‑two retained their place in the Syllabus, of the sixty‑one theses which had been laid before the episcopate for examination in 1862, thirty were selected. The promulgation, according to the original plan, was to have taken place simultaneously with the proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception; in the event it was ten years later (8 December 1864) that Pius IX published the Encyclical “Quanta Cura”, and on the same day, by commission of the pope, the secretary of State, Cardinal Antonelli sent, together with an official communication, to all the bishops the list of theses condemned by the Holy See. The title of the document was: “A Syllabus containing the most important errors of our time which have been condemned by our Holy Father Pius IX in Allocutions, at Consistories, in Encyclicals, and other Apostolic Letters”.

The reception of the Syllabus among Catholics was assured through the love and obedience which the children of the Church bear towards the vicar of Christ on earth. They were, besides, prepared for its contents by the various announcements of the pope during the eighteen years of his pontificate; and, as a matter of fact, no sooner had it made its appearance than it was solemnly received in national and provincial councils by the episcopate of the whole world. Among the enemies of the Church, no papal utterance had stirred up such a commotion for many years: they saw in the Syllabus a formal rejection of modern culture, the pope's declaration of war on the modern State. In Russia, France, and also in those parts of Italy then subject to Victor Emmanuel its publication was forbidden. Bismarck and other statesmen of Europe declared themselves against it. And to the present day, it is a stumbling‑block to all who favor the license of false Liberalism.

B. Binding Power.—The binding power of the Syllabus of Pius IX is differently explained by Catholic theologians. All are of the opinion that many of the propositions are condemned if not in the Syllabus, then certainly in other final decisions of the infallible teaching authority of the Church, for instance in the Encyclical “Quanta Cura”. There is no agreement, however, on the question whether each thesis condemned in the Syllabus is infallibly false, merely because it is condemned in the Syllabus Many theologians are of the opinion that to the Syllabus as such an infallible teaching authority is to be ascribed, whether due to an ex‑cathedra decision by the pope or to the subsequent acceptance by the Church. Others question this. So long as Rome has not decided the question, everyone is free to follow the opinion he chooses. Even should the condemnation of many propositions not possess that unchangeableness peculiar to infallible decisions nevertheless the binding force of the condemnation in regard to all the propositions is beyond doubt For the Syllabus, as appears from the official communication of Cardinal Antonelli, is a decision given by the pope speaking as universal teacher and judge to Catholics the world over. All Catholics, therefore, are bound to accept the Syllabus. Exteriorly they may neither in word nor in writing oppose its contents; they must also assent to it interiorly.

C. Contents.—The general contents of the Syllabus are summed up in the headings of the ten paragraphs under which the eighty theses are grouped. They are: Pantheism, Naturalism, Absolute Rationalism (1‑7); Moderate Rationalism (8‑14); Indifferentism and false Tolerance in Religious matters (15‑1S); Socialism, Communism, Secret Societies, Bible Societies, Liberal Clerical Associations (reference is made to three Encyclicals and two Allocutions of the pope, in which these tendencies are condemned) Errors regarding the Church and its rights (19‑38), Errors on the State and its Relation to the Church (39‑55); Errors on Natural and Christian Ethics (56‑64); Errors on Christian Marriage (65‑74) Errors on the Temporal Power of the Pope (75~76) Errors in Connection with Modern Liberalism (7780). The content of any one thesis of the Syllabus is to be determined according to the laws of. scientific interpretation. First of all, one has to refer to the papal documents connected with each thesis. For in accordance with the peculiar character of the Syllabus, the meaning of the thesis is determined by the meaning of the document it is drawn from. Thus the often cited eightieth thesis,

‘The pope may and must reconcile himself with, and adapt himself to, Progress, Liberalism, and Modern Civilization”, is to be explained with the. help of the Allocution “Jamdudum cernimus” of 18 March, 1861. In this allocution the pope expressly distinguishes between true and false civilization, and declares that history witnesses to the fact that the Holy See has always been the protector and patron of all genuine civilization; and he affirms that, if a system designed to de‑Christianize the world be called a system of progress and civilization, he can never hold out the hand of peace to such a system. According to the words of this allocution, then, it is evident that the eightieth thesis of the Syllabus applies to false progress and false Liberalism and not to honest pioneer‑work seeking to open out new fields to human activity.

Moreover, should a thesis, according to the papal references, be taken from a condemned book, the meaning of the thesis is to be determined according to that which it has in the condemned book. For the thesis has been condemned in this particular meaning and not in any other which might possibly be read into its wording. For instance, the fifteenth thesis, “Everyone is free to adopt and profess that religion which he, guided by the light of reason holds to be true”, admits in itself of a right interpretation. For man can and must be led to the knowledge of the true religion through the light of reason. However, on consulting the Apostolic Letter “Multiplices inter”, dated 10 June, 1851, from which this thesis is taken, it will be found that not every possible meaning is rejected, but only that particular meaning which, in 1848, Vigil, a Peruvian priest, attached to it in his “Defensa”. Influenced by Indifferentism and Rationalism, Vigil maintained that man is to trust to his own human reason only and not to a Divine reason, i. e. to the truthful and omniscient God Who in supernatural revelation vouches for the truth of a religion. In the sense in which Vigil's book understands the fifteenth thesis, and in this sense alone does the Syllabus understand and condemn the proposition.

The view held by the Church in opposition to each thesis is contained in the contradictory proposition of each of the condemned theses. This opposition is formulated, in accordance with the rules of dialectics, by prefixing to each proposition the words: “It is not true that . . .” The doctrine of the Church which corresponds, for instance, to the fourteenth thesis is as follows: “It is not true, that philosophy must be treated independently of supernatural revelation.” In itself no opposition is so sharply determined as by the contradictory: it is simply the negation of the foregoing statement. However, the practical use of this negation is not always easy, especially if a compound or dependent sentence is in question, or a theoretical error is concealed under the form of an historical fact. If, as for instance in thesis 42, the proposition, that in a conflict between civil and ecclesiastical laws the rights of the State should prevail, be condemned, then it does not follow from this thesis, that, in every conceivable case of conflicting laws the greater right is with the Church. If, as in thesis 45, it be denied that the entire control of the public schools belongs exclusively to the State, then it is not maintained that their control does in no way concern thc State, but only the Church. If the modern claim of general separation between Church and State is rejected, as in thesis 55, it does not follow that separation is not permissible in any case. If it be false to say that matrimony by its very nature is subject to the civil power (thesis 74), it is not necessarily correct to assert that it is in no way subject to the State. While thesis 77 condemns the statement that in our time it is no longer expedient to consider the Catholic religion as the only State religion to the exclusion of all other cults, it follows merely that to‑day also the exclusion of non‑Catholic cults may prove expedient, if certain conditions be realized.

D. Importance.—The importance of the Syllabus lies in its opposition to the high tide of that intellectual movement of the nineteenth century which strove to sweep away the foundations of all human and Divine order. The Syllabus is not only the defense of the inalienable rights of God, of the Church, and of truth against the abuse of the words freedom and culture on the part of unbridled Liberalism, but it is also a protest, earnest and energetic, against the attempt to eliminate the influence of the Catholic Church on the life of nations and of individuals, on the family and the school. In its nature, it is true, the Syllabus is negative and condemnatory; but it received its complement in the decisions of the Vatican Council and in the Encyclicals of Leo XIII. It is precisely its fearless character that perhaps accounts for its influence on the life of the Church towards the end of the nineteenth century; for it threw a sharp clear light upon reef and rock in the intellectual currents of the time.

II. THE, SYLLABUS OF PIUS X.—A. History.—The Syllabus of Pius X is the Decree “Lamentabili sane exitu”, issued on 3 July, 1907, condemning in sixty-five propositions the chief tenets of Modernism. This Decree, later on called the Syllabus of Pius X on account of its similarity with the Syllabus of Pius IX, is a doctrinal decision of the Holy Office, i. e. of that Roman Congregation which watches over the purity of Catholic doctrine concerning faith and morals. On 4 July, 1907, Pius X ratified it and ordered its publication; and on 18 November, 1907, in a Motu Proprio he prohibited the defense of the condemned propositions under the penalty of excommunication, reserved ordinarily to the pope. The Decree is supplemented by the Encyclical “Pascendi" of 8 September, 1907, and by the oath against Modernism prescribed on 1 September, 1910. Thus, the Syllabus of Pius X is the first of a series of ecclesiastical pronouncements dealing with the condemnation of Modernism, whilst the Syllabus of Pius IX sums up the condemnations previously passed by the same pope.

B. Contents.—By far the greater number of the theses of this Syllabus are taken from the writings of Loisy, the leader of the Modernists in France; only a few are from the works of other writers (e. g., thesis 6, Fogazzaro, 26, Le Roy). As a rule the quotation is not literal, for it would have been possible only in a few eases clearly to express the error in a short proposition. According to their contents the theses may be divided into six groups. They condemn the doctrine of the Modernists on ecclesiastical decisions (1‑8), and on Holy Writ (9‑19), the Modernist Philosophy of Religion (20‑26) and Modernist Christology (27‑38); the theory of the Modernists on the origin of the sacraments (39‑51) and the evolution of the Church with regard to its constitution and doctrine (52‑65). In detail the Syllabus of Pius X condemns the following assertions: ecclesiastical decisions are subject to the judgment of scientific scrutiny and do not demand interior assent (1‑8); “excessive simplicity or ignorance is shown by those who believe that God is really the Author of Holy Scripture” (9); God neither inspired (in the Catholic sense of the word) the sacred writers nor guarded them from all error, the Gospels in particular are not books worthy of historic belief, as their authors have consciously, though piously, falsified facts (10‑19); Revelation can be nothing else than the consciousness acquired by man of his relation to God, and does not close with the Apostles (20‑21); “The Dogmas, which the Church proposes as revealed are not truths fallen from Heaven, but an interpretation of religious facts, acquired by the human mind through laborious process of thought” (this twenty second thesis, with the somewhat crude expression, “truths fallen from Heaven”, is taken from Loisy's “L'Evangile et l'Eglise”); one and the same fact can be historically false and dogmatically true; faith is based upon a number of probabilities; dogmatic definitions have only a passing practical value as norms in life (23‑26); the Divinity of Christ is a dogma which the Christian consciousness deduced from its idea of the Messiah, the real historical Christ is inferior to the Christ idealized by faith; Jesus Christ erred; His resurrection is no historical event, His vicarious death is a Pauline invention (27‑38), the sacraments were not instituted by Christ, but are additions made by the Apostles and their successors, who, under the pressure of events, interpreted the idea of Christ (39‑51), Jesus Christ did not think of founding a Church; the latter is a purely human society subject to all the changes of time; of the Primacy, Peter himself knew nothing; the Church is an enemy of scientific progress (5‑57); “Truth is as changeable as man, because it is evolved with him, in him, and by him” (58); there are no immutable Christian dogmas, they have developed and must develop with the progress of the centuries (59‑63), “Scientific progress demands a reform of the Christian dogmatic conception of God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Word Incarnate, and redemption “ (64), “The Catholicism of to‑day is irreconcilable with genuine scientific knowledge unless it be transformed into a Christendom without dogmas, i. e. a broad and liberal Protestantism” (65).

C. Binding Power.—Many theses of the Syllabus of Pius X, as all Catholic theologians affirm, are heresies, i. e. infallibly false; for their contradictory is dogma, in many cases even fundamental dogma or an article of faith in the Catholic Church. With regard to the question whether the Syllabus is in itself an infallible dogmatic decision, theologians hold opposite opinions. Some maintain that the Decree is infallible on account of its confirmation (4 July, 1907) or sanction (18 November, 1907) by the pope; others defend the opinion that the Decree remains nevertheless the doctrinal decision of a Roman Congregation, and is, viewed precisely as such not absolutely immune from error. In this theological dispute, therefore, liberty of opinion, which has always been safeguarded by the Church in undecided questions still remains to us Yet theologians agree that no Catholic is allowed to maintain any of the condemned theses. For in the decrees of a Roman Congregation we not only have the verdict of a scientific commission, which gives its decisions only after close investigation, but also the pronouncement of a legitimate religious authority competent to bind the whole Church in questions within its competence (cf. what has been said above regarding the Syllabus of Pius IX: under I. B.).

D. Importar~ce.—The Syllabus of Pius X may be taken as an introduction to the Encyclical “ Pascendi", which gives a more systematic exposition of the same subject. It may be, therefore, that later generations will not find it necessary to distinguish between the importance of the Syllabus and that of the Encyclical. Nevertheless, the Syllabus was published at the most opportune moment. The Catholics of those countries in which Modernism had worked its ill effects felt relieved. By this Decree the tenets of religious evolutionism were laid before them in short theses and condemned. Up to that time the significance and the bearing of isolated Modernist views, appearing now here, now there, had not always been fully grasped. Now, however, everyone of good will had to recognize that the Modernists, under the plea of assimilation to modern ideas of development, had tried to destroy the foundations of all natural and supernatural knowledge. Moreover, to the whole Catholic world the Decree sounded a note of warning from the supreme pastor and drew attention to the excellent principles of scholastic theology and to the growing importance of a thorough schooling in exegetical criticism and in the history of dogma, which the Modernists had abused in the most unpardonable manner.

THE PERTINENT SECTION OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

DOGMATIC CANONS AND DECREES

CHAPTER I

That Laymen, and Clerics when not Sacrificing, are not Bound of Divine Right to

Communion under Both Species

l;Wherefore, tihis holy svnod—instructed by the Holy Spirit, Who is the spirit of Wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of godliness, and following the judgment and usage of the Church itself declares and teaches that laymen, and clerics when not consecrating, are not obliged, by any divine precept, to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both species; and that neither can it ‑ by any means be doubted, without injury; to faith, that communion under either species is sufficient for them unto salvation. For, a1tlloughl Christ, the Lord, in the Last Supper, instituted and delivered to the Apostles this venerable sacrament in the species of bread and wine, not therefore do that institution and delivery tend thereunto, that all the faithful of Christ be bound by the institution of the Lord, to receive both species (can. i and ii). But neither is it rightly gathered from that discourse which is in the sixth of John—However, according to the various interpretations of holy :Fathers and Doctors it be understood—that the communion of both species was enjoined by the Lord (can. iii); for He Who said: “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you” (verse 54), also said: “He that eateth this bread shall live forever”‑(Verse 59); and He who said: “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life” (Verse 55), also said: “The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world” (Verse 52); and, in fine, He who said: “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him” (verse 57), said nevertheless: “He that eateth this bread shall live forever” (Verse 59)

. . .

CHAPTER II

The Power of the Church as regards the Dispensation of the Sacrament of the Eucharist

It; furthermore declares that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain, or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times and places. And this the Apostle seems not obscurely to have intimated, when he says: “Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God.” And indeed it is sufficiently manifest that he himself exercised this power, as in many other things, so in regard of this very sacrament; when, after having ordained certain things touching the use thereof, he says: “the rest I will set in order when I come.” Wherefore, Holy Mother Church, knowing this her authority in the administration of the sacraments, although the use of both species has, from the beginning of the Christian religion, not been unfrequent, yet, in progress of time, that custom having been already, very widely changed, she, induced by weighty and just reasons, has approved of this custom of Comminicating under one species, and decreed that it was to be held as a law; which it is not Iawful to reprobate, or to change at pleasure, without the authority of the Church itself (can, ii).

CHAPTER III

That Christ Whole and Entire and a True Sacrament are Received under Either Species.

It moreover declares that although, as hath been already said, our Redeemer, in that last supper, instituted, and delivered to the Apostles trhis sacrament in two species, yet it is to be acknowledged that Christ whole and entire and a true sacrament are received under either species alone; and that therefore, as regards the fruit thereof, they who receive one species alone are not defrauded of any grace necessary for salvation (can. iii)

CHAPTER IV

That Little Children are not Bound to Sacramental Communion

FinallyT, this same holy synod teaches that little children who have not attaincd to the use of reason are not by any necessity obliged to the sacramental communion of the Eucharist (can. iv) forasmuch as, having been regenerated by the ]aver of baptism, and being incorporated with Christ, they cannot at that age lose the grace which they have already acquired of being the sons of God. Not, therefore is antiquity to be condemned, if, in some places, it, at one time observed that custom; for as these most holy Fathers had a probable cause for what they did in respect of their times, so, assuredly, is it to be believed without controversy that they did this without any necessity thereof unto salvation.

ON COMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES AND

ON THE COMMUNION OF INFAN T S

Canon I. If Anyone saith that by the precept of God, or by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist; let him be anathema.

Canon II. If anyone saith that the Holy Catholic Church was not induced, by just causes and reasons, to communicate laymen, and also clerics when not consecrating, under the species of bread only, or that she erred in this; let him be anathema.

Canon III. If anyone denieth that Christ whole and entire – the fountain and author of all graces – is received under the one species of bread, because that – as some falsely assert – He is not received, according to the institution of Christ Himself, under both species; let him be anathema

Canon IV. If anyone saith that the communion of the Eucharist is necessary‑ for little children, before they have arrived at years of discretion; let him be anathema.

As regards, however, those two articles, proposed on another occasion, but which have not as yet been discussed; to wit, whether the reasons by which the Holy Catholic Church was led to communicate under the one species of bread only, laymen, and also priests when not celebrating, are in such wise to be adhered to, as that on no account is the use of the chalice to be allowed to anyone soever; and, whether, in case that, for reasons beseeming and consonant with Christian charity, it appears that the use of the chalice is to be granted to any nation or kingdom, it is to be conceded under ‑ certain conditions; and what are those conditions; this same holy synod reserves the same to another time—for the earliest opportunity that shall present itself—to be examined and defined.

********

LETTER SENT TO THE WANDERER (JUNE 16, 1977) DISCUSSING INTENTION

Editor, The Wanderer:

Some statements near the conclusion of.Mr. Matt's article on Communion in the hand in the May l9th Wanderer, triggered the idea that Divine Providence may possibly be using this lamentable development to force us to face an even worse situation, which, like a cancer, has been spreading in the Church during the past decade largely unrealized. His words, “Whatever disappointment Catholics may hold as a result of the Bishops' vote on the Communion in the hand option.... We cannot afford to let the controversy ... distract us from the reality of Christ's presence in the Eucharist,” are an expected encouragement. I am wondering, however if they should not be tempered with a warning that some of the faithful are actually unable to take comfort in them now, and increasingly more of them will be unable to lake comfort in the future, for the simple reason that what may seem to be the Eucharist actually isn't.

I am not in agreement with those who claim that Masses celebrated according to the Novus Ordo are never true, valid Masses; but I am forced to admit by much that I see, hear, and read about that their doctrinal error has turned into a pastoral truth in some (many?) actual instances. This has come about, not because of the New Ordo, but because some priests seem to be failing to effect the Sacrament either by 1) defective intention, or 2) defective form. The Council of Trent taught that the intention of doing what the Church does is required in the ministers when they are effecting and conferring the sacraments. (D 354).The Council of Florence specified the intention in the course of specifying the form of the Eucharist “The form of the sacrament is the words of the Savior with which He effected the sacrament; for the priest effects the sacrament by speaking in the person of Christ. It is by the power of these words that the substance of the bread is changed into the Body of Christ, and the substance of the wine into His Blood.” (D 698) For the Eucharist, the. intention of doing what the Church does is therefore to change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. In this light it is difficult to understand how a Catholic priest and theologian can tell a gathering of Anglican and Catholic clergymen, “Of course, Christ cannot now be present in time and space,” (as reported in Homiletic and Pastoral Review, April, 19, page 17) if he has the intention of effecting the bodily presence of Christ during his liturgical celebrations. It is difficult to understand how the priest who said, “This is the sign of the Eucharist,” (as happened some years ago here in Portland, Ore., during the 'consecration' at a Mass before a large congregation) could have had the intention of doing what the Church does. One may also reasonably wonder whether this young priest effects the Eucharist at other Masses, even when he uses the correct form.

In 1972, at a theological institute held here in Portland for the purpose of updating priests. a Jesuit seminary professor denied that there is an intrinsic change in the bread and wine used at Mass. In reply to a question about this he said, “The Mass is not special because it is a sacrifice; it is special because it is the community acting as community.... Nothing special happens at the words of consecration—unless you reduce the Eucharistic Prayer only to the words of consecration.” when asked what difference there was between a consecrated Host and one still in the sacristy, he replied, “. . . there is a change— sure there is a change — of meaning though. But meaning is just as real as substance.” One would hope that not too many of the priests being 'updated' changed their idea of what they were effecting at Mass, but what about the young seminarians this professor influences? He is still teaching despite protests made to Rome. If his students accept this teaching. how can they have the intention of doing what the Church does when they will say Mass? Pope Paul VI specifically cautioned against the introduction of change‑of‑meaning, 'transignification,' terminology some years ago, but mans seminary professors seem to have given it about the same attention that they gave Humanae Vitae.

A few years ago a newly ordained priest gave Benediction to his religious community with the Lectionary instead of with the monstance and coraecrated Host, apparently to show his agreement with modern theological ideas concening the reality of Christ's presence being as much in His words as in the Eucharist. A prospective seminarian visited a number of seminaries about five years ago and later related some of his experiences in lectures in various cities. Some of the seminarians he encountered referred to Benediction as “cookie worship.” If they are now priests, and still base that idea how can they possibly have the intention of changing the cookie into the Body of Christ at their Masses? How can those who receive bread which has been offered by such priests receive anything other than a cookie?

I am convinced that the time has come for Catholics to realize that they can no longer take the Eucharist for granted when they are in certain so‑called Catholic churches. They had better check. Defective form is fairly easy to recognize: one advantage of the New Ordo is that the celebrant speaks the words of consecration so that everybody may hear. If he doesn't say, “This is My Body,” and “This is . . . My Blood,” there is no Eucharist effected. There is a difficulty in knowing whether the particular host which one receives was consecrated during the present Mass, or at an earlier Mass by a different priest, so try to get into the Communion line where the ciborium which received a proper consecration is being used.

Defective intention may be obvious in a few cases, when the priest has made plain, in the course of his sermons and other instructions that the bread is only a sign of Christ's presence. The key word is ‘only’; the Church has always taught that the consecrated Host is a sign so far as appearance is concerned. What about the priests (and bishops) who are theological mug‑wumps and like to agree with whomever they are talking? If they know that you are militant about the official teaching of the Church, that is what they will support when they talk to you; if they talk to modernists, they will support theological modernism. Very often it is practically impossible to know just what such clerics do believe; they are masters of double‑talk. which is not news to most Wanderer readers. If you make a determined effort to discover their real beliefs you can expect to be excoriated for engaging in a witch‑hunt—which is one of the worst sins in the judgment of those who admit no moral absolutes — but you can take comfort in the words of Our Lord, “Be therefore wise as serpents, and guileless as doves” (Matt. 10: 16).

Serpentine tactics for learning a priest's view of the Eucharist could be questioning those who have recently attended instructions given by him to prospective converts or older students. Another possibility would be to get a confederate who is unknown to the priest to act the part of a non-Catholic interested in current Catholic teaching about the Eucharist and have him either talk to the priest individually or attend instructions given to a group by the priest. As a last resort, once could, in the course of going to confession. ask a question like, “what should I do if I have good reason to think that a person is receiving Communion for the purpose of giving the Host to someone outside the church after Mass?”" Before doing something like this, be sure to rehearse several possible scenarios so that questions likely to be asked by the priest can he met with calm and truthful evasion based on the idea that one is not sure that such activity is really taking place, but that one is worried about the possibility of sacrilege, and might have an obligation in conscience to investigate further. This is not an Penance‑Reconciliation, a penitent has always had the right to ask the confessor questions dealing with possible as well as actual obligations in conscience. The questions asked, or the advice given, by the priest should readily reveal whether or not he considers n consecrated Host worth infinitely more than a piece of bread A priest who is little bothered about the possibility of sacrilege would not seem to agree with traditional Church teaching. Cardinal Carberry was not indulging in paranoid speculation when he warned those voting for Communion in the hand about the danger of devil worship and use of Hosts in black masses Wanderer May 19th, page 5): Those who doubt that such things are taking place are advised to read The Devil's Avenger, A Biography of Anton Szandor LaVey, by Burtan Wolfe, Pyramid Books No.. A 3471, $1.50. LaVey is the founder of the Church of Satan in San Francisco. The first chapter of the book contains a detailed description of a typical black mass held in San Francisco on many Fridays at midnight. Or see the letter in the Forum section of the May 26th Wanderer, whose writer calls attention to a suggestion printed in a national magazine advising that a piece of Communion wafer can be used to replace the filter of a pot smoker's pipe: “I may not be first to eat the body of Jesus, but I may be the first to smoke him.”

What do you do when you have good reason to believe that the Communion bread 'consecrated' by Fr.X really isn't? If there are other priests serving the same parish who are orthodox, you carefully observe which ciboria are consecrated by them and attend the Mass and get into the Communion line where those ciboria are used. If that is impractical, or if it is a one‑priest parish, you can check the possibilities at other parishes in your area. If you are situated so that this is impractical, or impossible, then you are a bit ahead of what is likely the fate of more and more Catholics in more and more areas of the Church in coming years, when the priests who are faithful to an older tradition die off, and the only ones left are those who follow a newer theology of the Eucharist. Hence the title of this essay.

Such a gloomy prospect is, of course, not the only possibility. Just as wars and natural calamities often turn atheists and agnostics to thoughts of God, so the 'punishment' threatened by Our Lady at Fatima and elsewhere may be the instrument whereby God will bring to their senses those who have the duty of enforcing doctrinal orthodoxy in the Church.

In any event, we should realize that we have probably been and still are, much too unappreciative of what we have all too often taken for granted — the ready availability of Mass and Holy Communion. The dismal prospects for the future are not without precedent for English‑speaking Catholics. In less than fifty years, beginning with 1531, when England was practically one hundred percent Catholic, the Church there renounced its allegiance to Rome; most of the clergy and hierarchy readily embraced the new religion; the Edwardian Communion Service was mandated under penalty of heavy fines, an life imprisonment was the penalty for saying Mass. Later, those saying or attending Mass were subject to execution.

Those who will not learn the lessons taught by history are doomed to learn them by experience.

Fr. Howard L. Morrison

- Beaverton, Ore.

THE PENTECOSTAL MOVEMENT: A MANIFESTATION AND AN

EXPRESSION OF THE "NEW CHURCH"

The rapid spread of the "Charismatic Movement" within the Catholic milieu has taken even its protagonists by surprise. There is hardly a parish or convent left that has not in sonic way been influenced by this religious "phenomena," indeed, some leave become totally Charismatic. It has received the approbation, if not the blessing, of some of the highest members of the hierarchy. All this being so, it becomes incumbent upon us to examine this "religion for our times," this "authentic renewal"[16] in the light of what its leading exponents have stated.

Few Pentecostals would deny that this "Evangelical" movement is other than a manifestation of the "New" and "Post‑conciliar" Church. As Ralph Martin, one of the movement's founders, states: "the renewal began, not apart from the Church, but amongst a group of men and women with a deep commitment to the Church and to the renewal that was advocated Vatican II." As for the actual founders, they are well described by James Manney: "Although their backgrounds are varied, they shared at least two common interests before experiencing the baptism of the Spirit: a fervent concern for a fundamental and communitarian life, and a high degree of theoretical agreement about the right shape and strategy for the renewal. All were deeply influenced by the Cursillo Movement;[17]2 and shared an intense experience living and working together in a unique Christian community they formed at Notre Dame in 1964‑1967.[18]

To backtrack somewhat, the Pentecostal sect was founded in 1901 by a young Methodist pastor, Charles Parham. At the Bethel Bible School in Topeka, Kansas, he claimed to have received "the baptism of the Holy Spirit," an experience that was immediately. associated with the “gift of tongues”[19] After hearing Charles Parham speak of this event, William Seymour, a Holiness preacher, took the Pentecostal doctrine to Los Angeles and there led the Azusa Street revival. From Azusa Street the movement spread rapidly throughout the United States and abroad. While there are now a great many "classical" Pentecostal denominations, it is estimated that there are some 13 to 15 million individuals who consider themselves to be Pentecostals.[20]

The movement was initially rejected by the "mainline" Protestant Churches. However. with time, members of various Christian denominations began to introduce "Pentecostal" ideas within their respective organizations and. By 1960, there were Episcopalian and Lutheran clergy involved actively in what now came to called "neo‑Pentecostalism."

In 1960, a group of lay professors at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, Pa. (Founded by the Holy Ghost Fathers). Returned from a Cursillo Congress where they met with Ralph Martin. Mr. Martin, influenced by David Wilkerson's (a Pentecostal minister) book "The Cross and the Switchblade,"[21] sought out contact with the Pentecostals.[22] This was arranged through the mediation of an Episcopalian pastor, W. Lewis. In January of 1967, four members of the Duquesne University group joined the Pentecostals in a prayer meeting. Impressed by the "participation in prayer," and the "living theology" that they saw, two of them, Ralph Martin and Patrick Bourgeois (a theology professor) returned the following week and sought the "laying on of hands" that they might receive "the baptism of the Spirit." They were prayed over, and the results as described in Martin's own words were:

"They asked only that I make an act of faith that the Holy Spirit's power would enter into me. I began to pray rapidly in tongues. There was nothing particularly exalting or spectacular in all this. I felt a certain sense of peace, a need to pray. I was curious to know where all this would lead."[23]

The following week, Ralph imposed his hands on two other colleagues at Duquesne and they experienced the same result, accompanied with glossolalia. In February of the same year, a group of some thirty students and professors were similarly "initiated." As Martin had been a graduate student in philosophy at Notre Dame (specializing in Nietzsche), it was only a matter of time before the movement spread to his Alma Mater.

According to the Canadian magazine Vers Domain, the first seat of the movement was in the house of the chaplain of Opus Dei at Notre Dame. Indeed, the spread was not limited to the laity. Thus, for instance, Father Connelley describes how both Trappist and Benedictine monks, not willing to await the arrival of Ralph Martin, rushed out and found their own local Pentecostals to "initiate" them, and how, in turn, they spread the Spirit among Catholics in their area."[24]

From the start the movement was greatly assisted by the Protestant Pentecostals. To quote Kevin Ranaghan directly:

"One could not accurately relate the story of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit among Roman Catholics in the last four years without repeatedly pointing out the outstanding contribution of Protestant Pentecostals... Not only has there been a shared unity and fellowship in the work, but time and time again the Lord has used the service of' brothers and sisters in Christ from denominations other than Roman Catholic to initiate, to nourish, and to mature the outpouring of the Holy Spirit among Roman Catholics."[25]

This assistance was not limited to the spiritual sphere, for according to the same source, funds were provided for the founders to travel and preach the "new word" by the "Full Gospel Businessmen's Fellowship."

Our concern, however, is not to diagram in detail the phenomenal growth of this movement, but to come to terms with its basic nature. One suspects that the movement is but another "Enthusiasm,"[26] as far as the majority of its members are concerned. Whether or not the movement as such lasts, it has been the medium for spreading among the Catholic faithful a whole host of dubious concepts under apparent ecclesiastical approval. These concepts are unfortunately going to be with us for a long time. Let us consider first the issue of "Faith." From a Catholic viewpoint, Faith must be considered both objectively and subjectively. As the Catholic Encyclopedia (1908) states: "Objectively it stands for the sum of Truths revealed by God in Scripture and Tradition and which the Church presents to us in a brief form in her creeds; subjectively, faith stands for the habit or virtue by which we assent to these truths." Faith, says St. Thomas, is "the act of the intellect assenting to a Divine Truth owing to the movement of the will, which is itself moved by the grace of God." (Summa Tlieol. 11‑11 iv, a, 2). Such definitions cannot be taken lightly, for as St. Thomas says elsewhere, "the principles of the doctrine of salvation are the articles of faith" (Commentary on I Cor. 12:10), and as St. Paul himself said, "without the faith it is impossible to please God" (Heb. xi. 6). Thus it follows that, as the Catholic Encyclopedia defines it, Orthodoxy is "right belief or purity of faith."

Opposed to this "hard‑line" or "essentialist" (the term is Andrew Greeley's) approach to faith is that of the modernists. For them, to again quote Andrew Greeley, "faith is primarily an encounter with God and Jesus Christ rather than an assent to a coherent set of defined truths." This outlook is variously described as "Existentialist," as "Encounter theology," as "Personalism," and reduces faith to the realm of experience and feeling. Such a "faith" may include an orthodox Catholic view (in so far as such is not specifically excluded) but, in fact, rarely does, and is often reduced to what Maritain calls "a simple sublimating, aspiration" (The Peasant of Gerronne). It is a faith that allows us to believe whatever we want. And so it follows that:

"The people involved in the charismatic renewal are basically men and women of a new and richer faith. Faith of course, is a gift of God, a grace, an unearned favor. It comes to love serve and adore Jesus with all our hearts, the Jesus of faith and of an interior, visceral Christianity" (Jacques Maritain). This is the faith of the Pentecostal. As Dorothy Ranaghan says:

"Believing the Word of God, by witnessing the life of the Word lived out in the lives of Christians, by seeing the results of faith in the beauty of those around us..."[27]

Faith then, for the Pentecostal, is "experiential" and this characteristic h as been noted by many of their writers. Thus, Clark states: "men of all kinds are eager for the experience of i the supernatural... If Christ is someone who can be experienced... If there is to be a renewal in the mission of the Church to the world, there must be a renewal in the personal experience of Christ. The whole charismatic renewal is a renewal of faith."[28] James Byrne speaks of "an experience of Christ, or a conversion experience " and Father Gelpi, S.J. says that "the most basic question posed by the charismatic renewal is one of conversion to God. To understand the complexity of the conversion process, one must come to some clarity about the meaning of experience and of religious experience. " Taking Alfred North Whitehead as one of his authorities, Father Gelpi goes on to reiterate the phraseology of Maritain. "His (The Spirit's) gentle touch is closer to a visceral perception than to the perceptions of the five senses."[29] Ralph Martin, in describing the Pentecostal "birth," says the entire affair is an "experience " that people must "come into," and Kevin Ranaghan acknowledges that in the language of the sect, people ask, "Have they received yet ... ?" or, "Have they come into the experience yet?"or, "Have they come into the experience yet?~, 15

May one not ask, if our‑Catholic faith is to be reduced to what Schillebeeckx calls "The Sacrament of the Encounter with God," what need do we have for the institutional Church? And, in reverse, may we ask, if we have the institutional Church with Her Sacraments "without which" as St. Augustine says, “person cannot enter into that life which is true life,” (Tract 120 on John), what possible need could we have for the Holy Spirit to be given to us by heretics? Let us examine in more detail the principle "experience" that Pentecostals undergo, the so called "birth of the Spirit."[30]

It is very difficult to find a clear‑cut definition of "baptism of the Holy Spirit," for as Father O'Conner says, it is "quite difficult to determine what exactly is essential to it."[31] Father Vincent Walsh describes it as "an internal religious experience (or prayer experience) whereby the individual experiences the risen Christ in a personal way. This experience results from a certain 'release' of the power of the Holy Spirit, usually already present within the individual by Baptism or Confirmation."[32] John Healey quotes theologian Kilian McDonnell, O.S.B. as saying, "baptism in the Holy Spirit manifests itself in an adult when by either a crisis act or a growth process he says 'yes' to what objectively took place during the rite of initiation (Baptism and Confirmation)." Now, all this phraseology attempts to disguise the individual who has received Confirmation. As Father Gelpi, S.J. puts it, "a classical Protestant Pentecostal theory of conversion from the reception of the Holy Spirit. It designates the latter as a 'second blessing' over and above the conversion. And it regards tongues as the only decisive sign of the reception of the Spirit." He adds quite correctly that "there is no way to reconcile such a theory with Catholic doctrine."[33] Thus charismatics, in their attempt to delineate this alien rite from Catholic sacraments, must attempt a variety of subterfuges. Among these are the denigrating of the sacraments to the level of "public affirmations of the faith before the community," and the concept that the new rite "releases" the Holy Spirit's "power," previously only potentially present because of the sacraments. All this makes very little logical sense. Indeed, how can one reduce to logic what is a phenomena and an experience? As Father Gelpi says, "Spirit Baptism .is a self‑ validating experience" which "brings self‑integration, freedom, the enhancement of creativity and greater selflessness to one's actions." (Shades of Dale Carnegie!) Certainly, we can hardly ask for more clarity, for as the same source says, "the Catholic charismatic renewal is ... suffering from a vacuum, in its pastoral catechesis." This simply means that the movement has no well‑defined doctrine. In theory, then, the sacramental nature of the rite is denied, but in practice, it is insisted on.

Accompanying this "release" of the "power" of the "Spirit," are a variety of charismatic "gifts." Among the most characteristic of these is '.speaking in tongues." As Father O'Conner states, "that which marks the difference between the Pentecostal prayer meeting and prayer meetings of other types is chiefly the exercise of charisms." Indeed, the "gift of tongues" is to be sought after, for as James E. Byrne states, "Tongues, then is a valuable gift of prayer, it is an important gift and should be sought and valued."[34] He continues, "once received tongues should be used regularly. The most appropriate use is in the daily prayer. "What exactly is this gift? Byrne describes it as "a charismatic gift in which an individual speaks aloud in an unlearned vocabulary. "[35] Father Gelpi calls it a "vague emotive response to the impulse of the Spirit,"[36] Father Walsh is more specific and more confusing. He states, "praying in tongues is a gift whereby the person prays to God in a language which he does not know, by simply 'yielding' to the action of the Spirit ... the person does not use his rational powers of memory or intellect."

Yet, this form of prayer "begins and continues as long as the person wills...(and) is totally under the person's control. The person decides when he wishes to pray in tongues and when he wishes to stop. The person however has no control over what words will be spoken..."[37]

The Scriptural phrase of speaking in tongues occurs first in Acts: 2:1‑15 where, following the Feast of Pentecost, the one hundred and twenty disciples were heard speaking "with diverse tongues, according to the Holy Ghost gave them to speak." There were in Jerusalem a diversity of races and peoples such as to represent "every nation under heaven." All were "confounded in mind" because every man heard the disciples speaking the "wonderful things of God" in his own tongue. The glossolalia (the Greek word for this charism) thus described was, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia (1908), "historic, articulate and intelligible" and the listener understood the speaker. The same source tells us how "subsequent manifestations occurred at Caesarea, Palaestina, Ephesus and Corinth, all polyglottal regions." Indeed, this same gift has been manifest, in more recent times, in such cases as St. Francis Xavier, St. Anthony of Padua and St. Vincent Ferrer.

It would seem however that even in Apostolic times, abuses crept in, for St. Paul instructs the Corinthians (xiv 37) to employ none but articulate and "plain speech" in their use of the gift (9), and to refrain from such use in church unless even the unlearned could grasp what was said (16). No tongue could be genuine "without voice" and to use such a tongue would be the act of a barbarian (10, 11). Tongues, even then, had apparently deteriorated into a mixture of meaningless inarticulate gabble (9, 10), with an element of uncertain sounds (7, 8), which might sometimes be construed as little short of blasphemous (12:3). The Divine Praises were recognized now and then, but the general effect was one of confusion and disedification for the very unbelievers for whom the normal gift was intended (14:22, 23, 26). Thus used, tongues became for the church source of schism and scandal (23). If there is any connection between what goes on today among the Pentecostals and what happened in Corinth in Biblical times, then the warnings of St Paul also hold, for he asked that the faithful do all things "decently and according to order" (40)

It is usually held by both orthodox theologians and Pentecostals that this charism was given to the early Church and then disappeared for an idterminate period of time. While they interpret the nature of this charism and the reasons for its disappearance differently (classical Pentecostals say the church was "unfaithful" to the "gifts"), the use of "unintelligible" language seems to have re‑surfaced in the time of the Renaissance. Father Kinox in his excellent book on "Enthusiasm," discusses its re‑appearance among the "French prophets" of the 17th century where it cropped up among the Huguenots of the Cevennes and among the appelant Jansenists. It next appeared in 1830 in the neighborhood of Port Glasgow in England and spread among the Irvingites and other

"revivalist" groups. It is a phenomena that has appeared among the Mormons, the Shakers and a long list of similar sects ‑ always of course, in association with the "Spirit."[38]

According toDom Peter Flood, O.S.B., a recognized authority in moral and medical matters, glossolalia is "mere gibberish, not having the philological structure of any language," and is produced by the uncontrolled power of vocalization, as in the phenomena "of hysteria and in tantrums of young children not yet capable of sustained speech."[39] His studies, based on tape recordings, led him to believe that all the emotions felt in the prayer sessions were those of sensory excitement, because certain of the lower brain centers were being stimulated while not being controlled by higher mechanism. Such a view is certainly consistent with some of the opinions expressed by the charismatics themselves.

The Church has always held that the gift of tongues is a gratiae gratis datae, that is, a gift given for the sake of others. Further, the saints repeatedly warned against an individual desiring or seeking such gifts lest they be deluded by satanic powers. Again, it has always considered this particular gift as an inferior one, and St. Paul ranks it next to last in a list of eight charismata. It is a mere "sign" given for the sake of unbelievers, not believers (I Cor. Xiv: 22). But, if the gift of tongues is unintelligible, it loses its main evidential value. Moreover, if the person using this "gift" does not use his rational power, memory or intellect, with what is he praying and of what value is his prayer? No language has ever been identified with this type of Pentecostal gibberish, either in its earlier manifestations, or at the present time ‑ indeed, tape recordings have never been consistently interpreted by those who claim this parallel gift or function. One simply cannot accept, on the basis of either revivalist behavior or charismatic claims that this has anything in common with the "tongues of angels." Finally, no canonized Catholic saint has ever manifested this "charism" in the way that the Pentecostals understand it, and Father Thurston doesn't even mention it in his study of mystical phenomena.[40] If all this is not sufficient warning,let us consider the opinion of Father Knox:

"To speak with tongues you had never learned was, and is, a recognized symptom in cases of diabolical possession."[41]

Now, please understand, I am not saying that all the Pentecostals are possessed by the Evil Spirit. What I am saying, however, is that for Catholics to "seek and value", this "charism," for them to use it frequently in public and private prayer, for them to consider it a sign that the Spirit has descended upon the individual is, to say the least, hardly prudent. Prudence is, after all, both a cardinal virtue and a gift of the Holy Spirit. I am also saying that to leave oneself open to "vague emotive responses" is to leave oneself open to influences the nature of which one can never know with certainty. This is clearly demonstrated in another quote of the Ranaghans which is most frightening:

"I felt myself tremble and recognized clearly and distinctly an odor of boiling sulpher, an odor which the chemical laboratory permitted me to know well." (Emphasis mine)"

It would be impossible to examine all the opinions that the charismatic movement entails. In order to sample their attitudes on a variety of topics the following quotation is given:

"All of this must be taken and given in the context that God does not have a plan for His people, a strategy for the salvation of the world... We subjects of this King (Christ, I presume) are Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Mennonites, Pentecostals, and others. As a rule, our families have not always loved or trusted each other very well. But Jesus is determined to be Lord of all His people and He is outpouring His life‑giving Spirit upon us all. No matter what church background we come from, no matter what serious theological difficulties may still lie between us‑Jesus is teaching us that we are basically and fundamentally called to be one people. One Holy Nation, one royal priesthood, a new humanity led by the New Adam... Another good fruit of the charismatic renewal that can permeate the whole Church is the discovery with the Lord of the role of community in normal Christian life. We have discovered, and the whole church needs to experience that we are not meant to be saved as isolated individuals, but as brothers and sisters who belong to each other..."[42]

With regard to the Catholic Church, he states:

"It is not the Lord's will to create from the Catholic charismatic renewal another new denomination of church; but it is the Lord's will that we make every effort in the Spirit to be one with the Catholic Church.... Let us pray incessantly for our b~shops, for upon them rests the heavy responsibility which they must exercise now of recognizing the voice of the Lord among us.... We must be in harmony with the bishop and pastor, wherever possible cooperating with them in their pastoral, supporting them with our prayer, but also sharing with them our discernment and vision of the Lord's plan for the renewal of the Church."[43]

We see, then, a summary of Charismatic views presented to us by one of its foremost exponents, or rather, should we say, a compendium of errors that has been consistently anathematized by Papal Encyclicals and Ecumenical Canons of the Traditional Church. Even a "penny catechism Catholic" knows that he cannot worship in common with heretics, that "renewal" involves gettmg rid of the old man," and not creating a "new humanity," that salvation is an individual affa~r, and not a community experience, and that Catholicism was perfectly viable before the Charismatics brought to the Church their modernist "discernment and vision."

Yet despite all this, the Pentecostal vision can be said to be consistent with Vatican 11. Consider the following quotations taken from the "Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World":

"It has pleased God to men holy and save them not merely as individuals without any mutual bonds, but by making them into a single people, a people which acknowledges Him in truth and serves Him in holiness. So from the beginning of salvation history He has chosen men not just as individuals, but as members of a certain community. "

Thus we are witnesses of the birth of a new humanism, one in which man is

defined first of all by his responsibility towards his brothers and towards history..."

And again from the "Decree on Ecumenism:"

"The brethren divided from us also carry out many of the sacred actions of the Christian religion. Undoubtedly in ways that vary according to the condition of each church or community, these actions can truly engender a life of grace and can be rightly described as capable of providing access to the community of salvation."

The Charismatic religion can thus claim, with justice, to be the full flowering of the religion of the "New" and "Post‑Conciliar" Church. It is no wonder, then, that it has received the approbation and blessing of the hierarchy and even of the Pontiff. The Pope himself had warmly greeted the Pentecostals and addressed them directly. While voicing certain vague cautions, he stated:

"You have gathered here in Rome under the sign of the Holy Year; you are striving in union with the whole Church for renewal‑spiritual renewal, authentic renewal, renewal in the Holy Spirit. We are pleased to see signs of this renewal; a taste for prayer, contemplation, praising God, attentiveness to the Holy Spirit, and more assiduous reading of the Holy Scriptures. We know likewise that you wish to open your hearts to reconciliation with God and your fellow men." Paul VI, May 19, 1975

And to the leaders of the movement he directly stated:

"We are very interested in what your are dong. We have heard so much about what is happening among you. And we rejoice." Observatore Romano, Oct. 11, 1 975

If any doubt about the Pope's attitude remains, one has but to recall that Cardinal Suenens had stated that, "should Paul VI request it, he would, in obedience, immediately dissociate himself from the movement." Such a request had never been made.

The Catholic hierarchy has been, with few exceptions, highly supportive of the movement. Cardinal Willebrands has stated that "the mission of the charismatic renewal is to remind all the people of God that we all belong with Jesus Christ, baptized in Him ‑ that we have received the gift of the Spirit." Cardinal Suenens, whose attitude has been noted above, is considered to be a "leader," and his book "A New Pentecost" is in every way an open endorsement of the movement and its ideas. The National Conference of Catholic Bishops (in America‑the Committee on Doctrine) endorsed the movement and, while noting "certain cautions," stated that it "should at this point not be inhibited, but allowed to develop." Six of the seven American Cardinals have responded to the movement in a "positive pastoral way." Cardinal Dearden of Detroit and Cardinal Kroll of Philadelphia (as indeed the Pope himself) have celebrated special Pentecostal charismatic liturgies in their cathedrals. Many of the Bishops are openly involved with the movement, and perhaps half the active clergy on the parish level consider themselves to be Pentecostals. What is perhaps even more serious is that many of the Pentecostals have declared themselves to be qualified spiritual directors. Since the bishops allow almost anyone who is interested in spiritual direction to become involved in this aspect of the "ministry," this has allowed the seeds of the movement to be disseminated within the heart of the few contemplative houses that are left in the New Church.[44]

Voices raised in protest have been few. Archbishop Robert J. Dwyer has stated that he "considers Pentecostalism to be one of the most dangerous trends in the Church of our time, closely allied in spirit with other disruptive and divisive movements, threatening great harm to her unity and damage to countless souls;" but, everyone knows what happened to his now famous letter to the Pope. Warnings from those who have departed from the movement are likewise ignored. Dr. Josephine Ford, a former leader, left because she found in the movement an excess of "spiritual arrogance," and the "spirit of Protestant sectarianism."[45] Dr. William Story, who was responsible for bringing the "spirit" to Notre Dame from the initial group of thirty at Duquesne University, has also left and warned that the movement contained "most grave dangers," "theological errors," and standards "incompatible with authentic Catholic tradition." Despite all this, the movement continues to spread and even where formal affilitation does not occur, its ideas diffuse in rampant fashion.

We see, then, that the barriers are down and the fortress has been breached. As St. John Fisher said to his apostate colleagues, "The fort is betrayed even of them that should have defended it." The battle standards of the enemy have been carried to the walls; and what is written on these standards? One finds such catch phrases as "renewal," "the authentic Church," "Dynamic religion," "Experiencing the Spirit," "Charisms for the common man," "A New or Second Pentecost," (what is wrong with the first one?) "Openness" and "Community."

Believe me, dear reader, the Holy Spirit bloweth where it will, but it does not leave a smell of flatus and boiling sulphur behind it. It bloweth when it will and has throughout all time, but it is always the same spirit that bloweth. It is not new, nor is it likely to adapt itself to the aberrant ways of modern man. Whatever all this new "evangelical" religion is, one thing is clear‑IT IS NOT CATHOLIC. No Catholic can hold that the Holy Spirit either derives, or is activated, from sources outside the Church. No Catholic can submit himself to rites and rituals that are not of ecclesiastical and ultimately of apostolic origin. No Catholic can allow himself to be involved in the gibberish of glossolalia..

No Catholic can accept a faith which is purely "experiential" and without doctrinal foundation. No Catholic can hold that salvation is not an individual affair. No Catholic can actively participate with non‑Catholics in acts of worship (did not Christ and the Apostles tell us how we should worship?), and finally, no Pentecostal can deny that every one of the above criteria are demanded of the followers of this new sect. If our hierarchy sees no problem in all this, then plain and simple, they are not Catholic! Those who are "born again" Christians are born again, but not within the womb of Holy Mother Church, for those within Her received their second birth at Baptism. We, as Catholics, would do well to recall the words of St Augustine:

"Only the Church [of all times] is the Body of Christ of which He is the Head and Savior. Outside of this Body the Holy Ghost does not vivify anyone. Those who are outside of the Church [of all times] do not have the Holy Ghost: let he who wishes to have the Holy Ghost be vigilant so that he does not land outside the Church [of all times]."

Letter 185 and Treatise on St. John.

---

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16] The phrase "authentic renewal" as applied to this movement is Paul VI's ‑ the complete quote is given later in the paper. Ralph Martin, The Spirit of the Church, Paulist Press: New York, 1976.

[17] The nature of the Cursillo movement would require separate documentation, a difficult task both because it poses as a conservative spiritual movement, and because of it is "secretive" in character. It has been condemned in an Encyclical letter by Bishop Meyer (in Brazilo) who has demonstrated its modernist and Teilhardian outlook. Dr. DeTar (TAN Books) has also been able to show its connections with the Communist movement. It has branches in other Christian denominations under a variety of names. One suspects that the "inner circle" of the Charismatics are deeply involved with this suspicious organization, and that the Cursillos recruit new members from among Charismatics.

[18] Ralph Martin, op cit.

[19] "Glossolalia," or speaking with tongues which is discussed below.

[20] In a certain sense the movement dates back to Wesley, the founder of Methodism, who wrote about the “interior witness of the Spirit.” The concept of “extra-ecclesial” inspiration with the Holy Spirit of course dates back to the Palagians and the Montanists. To disagree with the Pentecostals is to refuse to accept (their) Holy Spirit.

[21] The Cross and the Switch Blade, Pyramid Books, New York, 1964, 1973

[22] Quoted in Pentecostalism chez les catholiques, Rene Laurentin, Beauchesne, Paris, 1974

[23] These early Catholic Pentecostals felt something was lacking in the Cursillo movement and sought that “something extra” from the Pentecostals. It is also quite possible that they saw the Pentecostal movement as a means of spreading their Cursillo ideology. Certainly, the remarkable success of Pastor David Wilkerson among the New York drug addicts is worthy of respect. His achievement is however, not more remarkable than that of the Black Muslims, and other similar groups. The history of the Church is replete with similar achievements – to mention only Mother Theresa of Calcutta – and this without the imposition of some “extra-ecclesial” rite or questionable validity. For a Catholic to seek a “rite” outside of normal channels is truly extraordinary, and not without certain clear spiritual dangers.

[24] James Connelley, O.S.C. "The Charismatic Movement" in As the Spirit Leads Us, Paulist Press, New York, 1971

[25] Keven Ranaghan, "Catholics and Pentecostals Meet," ibid

[26] Msg. Knox, Enthusiasm, Oxford Univ. Press: London, 1960. This is a most important book and one every Pentecostal – indeed every Catholic involved in dealing with such cults, should be familiar with.

[27] "As the Spirit Leads us," op. cit.

[28] "As the Spirit Leads us," op. cit

[29] Father Donald Gelpi, S.J., Charism and Sacrament, Paulist Press, N.Y., 1976

[30] Ralph Martin, Sent by the Spirit, Paulist Press, N.Y., 1976.

[31] Father Edward D. O'Conner, C.S.C., The Pentecostal Movement in the Catholic Church, Paulist Press, N.Y., 1974

[32] Rev. Vincent M. Walsh, A Key to Charismatic Renewal in the Catholic Church, Abbey Press: St. Meinrad, Ind. 1976.

[33] Father Gelpi, Charism and Sacrament, op cit. And Can you Institutionalize the Spirit? In Pentecostal Catholics, Ed. Robert Meyer.

[34] Op. cit.

[35] James E. Bryne, Living in the Spirit, Paulist Press: N.Y., 1976.

[36] Op cit.

[37] Rev. Vincent Walsh, A Key to Charismatic Renewal in the Catholic Church, Abbey Press, St. Meinrad, Ind., 1974

[38] Rev. Msgr. R. A. Knox, "Enthusiasm" Oxford Univ. Press: London, 1950 and 1976.

[39] Dom Peter Flood, O.S.B., "Pentecostalism: Montanism, the Forerunner" in Christian Order. Vol. 16, No. 5, May, 1975.

[40] Herbert Thurston, S.J., “The Mystical Phenomena of Mysticism” Regnery: Chicago, 1952

[41] Enthusiasm, op. Cit

[42] One notes in passing the similarity of Ranaghan's phraseology with the following: "God's plan is dedicated to the unification of all races, religions and creeds. This plan, dedicated to the new order of things, is to make all things new ‑ a new nation, a new race, a new civilization and a new religion, a non‑sectarian religion" (C. W. Smith expressing the views of the Supreme Council 33rd degree Scottish Rite Freemasonry) and the words of the ex‑Abbe Roca, also a Freemason, who said "There will be a New Religion, a New Dogma, a New Ritual and a New Priesthood..."

[43] Both passages are taken from Kevin Ranaghan, "The Lord, the Spirit and the Church" in The Spirit of the Church by Ralph Martin, op. cit.

[44] Statements in this paragraph are from Ralph Martin's The Spirit and the Church, op.

[45] Quoted by George O’Toole, op. cit.

---

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]